Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railway Inspectors

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the full establishment of railway inspectors; and how many fully trained inspectors are currently in post.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The full complement of railway inspectors is 24. At present, 22 are in post, of whom six with relevant experience have been recently recruited and are undergoing short-term induction courses. With the continuing recruitment campaign, I expect the railway inspectorate to be at full strength by the middle of the year.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that there is concern that the railway inspectorate is not at full strength? Is he convinced that when it is it will be adequate, and what does he think about the observations made in The Observer at the weekend that, beginning in October, British Rail intends to abolish local health and safety representatives?

Mr. Portillo: That abolition does not relate to the statutory committees, which will continue in being. The

chief inspecting officer of railways has been reviewing staff resources available to him, especially in the light of the Fennell report, which recommended the use of the Health of Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to enforce measures for passenger safety. I am expecting his report to be presented to the Secretary of State shortly.

Mr. Prescott: For how long has the railway inspectorate been under establishment? Was the inspectorate consulted about the removal of the one-way leg from the diamond crossing involved in the Glasgow rail tragedy, which was a carbon copy of another collision two years previously? Were the Department and the inspectorate consulted as clearly economic reasons overrode safety priorities?

Mr. Portillo: The first reference that I found made to these crossing was in 1958; this sort of crossing has been installed since that time. The railway inspectorate believes that simpler crossings may be safer because less can go wrong and they are more reliable. It is content with that sort of installation. The railway inspectorate has been under strength for some time, but we have eight inspectors doing traditional railway inspectorate work—approving new works and accident inquiries—compared with five in 1979; and 14 dealing with matters relating to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act compared with five in 1975.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the north-west regional managers of British Rail to discuss the implications of the Channel tunnel for the north-west.

Mr. Portillo: I meet regional managers from time to time on regional visits. I look forward to the plans for freight and passenger services from the north-west to the Channel tunnel, which British Rail is obliged to publish by the end of the year.

Mr. McCartney: Is it not disgraceful that, in the run-up to 1993, the Minister cannot announce an overall plan for infrastructure in the north-west to take advantage of job


opportunities and the improvement in transport infrastructure? Given his failure to make a statement, does he share Lancashire county council's commitment, which it expressed at its conference in January when it called for a bridge head between Europe and the United States via a free port at Liverpool and for the construction in the Liverpool-Manchester area of a freight terminal capable of improving links between the Channel and the north-west? If such a link is not introduced by 1993, does the Minister agree that there will be a reduction in jobs and job opportunities in the north-west and a train drain from the north-west to the south-east and Europe?

Mr. Portillo: British Rail has already invested £600 million to improve services between the Channel tunnel and every region of the country. I have made it clear that the Department is happy to co-operate with the Liverpool land bridge concept. It is appropriate to produce plans by the end of the year—the tunnel will not open until 1993—because otherwise there may be a danger of plans being made too early. British Rail has make it clear that the first international site will be at Leeds and that there is a clear need in Strathclyde, Birmingham and Teesside for other freight facilities. It is also considering south Wales and the north-west.

Mr. Tredinnick: Bearing in mind the £500 million that British Rail is spending on the Channel tunnel in Kent, does my hon. Friend agree that for only £23 million the line from St. Pancras as far as Leicester could be electrified?

Mr. Portillo: I do not know whether my hon. Friend's figure is correct, but if a sound investment case were put to Ministers for the electrification of that line, or any other, Ministers would be happy to approve it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware of the traffic chaos on the M1, M6 and other roads leading from the north-west? Would it not be logical for the Government to put some money into establishing a major freight depot in the Greater Manchester area, possibly at Tameside, where the Secretary of State has seen a good site? Such investment would not only bring jobs to the north-west, but would relieve traffic congestion on the roads by ensuring that freight travelled by rail, which would be much more suitable for it.

Mr. Portillo: I am not at all sure that Government investment is needed to achieve those purposes. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already pressures pointing in that direction. Section 8 grants are available for establishing freight facilities where they would take freight lorries off sensitive roads in unsuitable areas.

Mr. Favell: Of course, every north-west hon. Member will want to endorse the plea by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for a rail freight terminal in the north-west. However, is there not a danger of thinking that all the country's freight will disappear down the Channel tunnel? How much will be able to get down there? Is the lack of proper road links developing between the north-west and the Channel, the East Anglian ports and Immingham in East Yorkshire not an even greater danger? Clearly, all freight will not be able to get into the tunnel.

Mr. Portillo: I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are aware of the pressures on roads and he has made a perfectly valid point. It is true that the amount of freight

passing through the Channel tunnel, although significant and an important psychological change for the country, will be only a tiny proportion of the total freight moved in this country.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that British Rail's present plans allow for only four trains a day in and out of the north-west, which is equivalent of about 280 lorries a day? Does he realise that that would not effectively clear one large international container ship? Is he aware that that would displace almost no worthwhile traffic from the motorway system? What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we have a system that will take goods and people from the north-west?

Mr. Portillo: I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures and the figure of four trains a day is not familiar to me. I am still waiting for the plans to be brought forward. However, from British Rail's document on the new proposed rail link published last week, I know that in 1993 there will be 35 train paths available daily each way through the Channel tunnel and that 75 per cent. of freight using the Channel tunnel is expected to come from beyond the south-east or to go beyond the south-east.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I appreciate that the proposals are still at an early stage and that they will not proceed until 1993. However, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the King's Cross connection and terminal is the right choice, as that is the choice that the House will be asked to make early?

Mr. Portillo: British Rail has made it clear that it believes that King's Cross is the right choice and a number of hon. Members from various parties have said that they believe that that is right because of the superior connections from King's Cross to the north of England. However, the investment proposal has not yet been put to the Government, so the Government have not taken a firm view on that yet.

Urban Areas (Rail Networks)

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the provision of local rail networks in urban areas.

Mr. Portillo: Urban rail services are mainly the responsibility of British Rail and the passenger transport executives, where they exist. The Government are happy to approve investment in such services wherever it offers value for money. Our general policy is explained in our response to the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the financing of rail services.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the success of the partnership in investment created by south and mid Glamorgan in extending the rail pattern in the Greater Cardiff area? Does he agree that for areas such as the Vale of Glamorgan and the south Wales valleys, increased investment and the development of those services is essential to the future communications network? Does he agree that the Government should take the lead in providing public investment to encourage that?

Mr. Portillo: One of the features of the area that the hon. Gentleman represents is that because there is no passenger transport authority covering it, the services on the provincial sector of British Rail qualify for public sector obligation grants, so the Government are involved


in providing money for services in the hon. Gentleman's area. I am aware of the contribution that mid and south Glamorgan are making to those rail services and I have explained the Government's policy in my first reply.

Mr. Amos: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main concern is not about British Rail's published timetables but about the non-arrival of the trains that are due to arrive? Will he please do something about the 7.48 am from Hexham to Newcastle, which is cancelled more often than it turns up?

Mr. Portillo: I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue that matter with the chairman of British Rail with his normal vigour. The Government are concerned that the highest quality of service should be provided by British Rail, and I know that my hon. Friend will take the matter up.

Mr. Snape: May I press the Minister on recommendation No. 6 in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on other provincial services and ask him whether the Government have accepted the recommendation that the services should be transferred to existing or newly formed passenger transport authorities? If so, will the Government continue to make their current financial contribution to the maintenance of those services?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be premature for me to pick off a recommendation in the MMC report and respond to it. The Government will have to consider their position and reply in due course. It has been an interesting suggestion, and we shall formulate our response to it. I simply make the point—I know that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with it—that public sector sector obligation grant is not available for areas that have PTAs so there are both pros and cons in the MMC proposal.

Motorway Repairs

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We receive various representations about the way in which motorway repairs are undertaken. We aim to programme works when traffic is lightest and complete the work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that the public is satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? I accept that there has been some improvement, but does my hon. Friend intend to take any steps further to improve the situation, which still leaves a great deal to be desired?

Mr. Bottomley: The simple answers are no and yes. Members of the public are dissatisfied. Things may appear to have been improved in the second half of last year, as we undertook fewer motorway repairs than we expected. We now manage to complete small repairs much faster. In addition, the development of the long-term programme and the fact that we are building roads to a higher standard will contribute to an easier journey for motorway users.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that safety on motorways is related not only to repairs and to the speed at which roads are improved? Will he consider urgently the carriage of dangerous substances to see whether heavy goods vehicles are conforming to the safety standards necessary to protect other motorists?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who launched the motorway safety package, and I are determined to have the safest possible motorways. At the moment the safety records of both Switzerland and the Netherlands appear to be slightly better than ours but we are determined to overtake those countries.

Mr. Higgins: Given the inevitable delays that motorway repairs cause, however quickly they may be carried out, will my hon. Friend consider carefully improving the system for notifying road users that delays are likely to be experienced? In particular, will he consider whether appropriate notices could be displayed and study the experience of Tokyo, which has a unified system for warning drivers when delays are likely?

Mr. Bottomley: I accept my right hon. Friend's point, and both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want to do better. I am not sure that the system operated in Tokyo is that much better than ours, given that it takes up to four hours to travel 40 km to the airport, but we shall try to make the system better in this country.

Shipping (Freight Movements)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making in the European Council of Ministers to liberalise freight movements by ships within European countries.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I have continued to press strongly for the liberalisation of cabotage, and substantive discussions are now scheduled for the June Transport Council.

Mr. Field: Will my right hon. Friend list the EEC countries that continue to use cabotage to restrict trade, and tell us when he expects to take up the powers vested in him under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which will enable the red ensign to sail into all the ports of EEC member countries without let or hindrance?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend probably knows that the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain restrict cabotage, but we have an agreement with the German Government allowing access to the German cabotage trades. My hon. Friend is right that I have powers under the Merchant Shipping Act, but my primary objective remains liberalisation through a binding Community regulation. That would be very much better than using the powers, although I should certainly do so in the last resort.

Mr. Benn: Will the Secretary of State comment on the judgment by the court last Friday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State cannot comment on a judgment that is still before a court.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the judgment by the court last Friday overturning the Merchant Shipping Act to which he has just referred and issuing him, as Secretary of State, with an


order not to proceed with regulations made under that Act? That means that for the first time in our history the courts of this country have actually ruled that a law passed by both Houses of Parliament is invalid.

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with the point that he raised. The matter is in the Court of Appeal, where the Government have launched an appeal.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend will recall that, when the legislation was being introduced, its legality was challenged. The Government put forward their case, and won it on a preliminary hearing, with costs awarded in their favour. Therefore, is it not extraordinary that, after the Act has been passed, we should now be faced with a similar situation which is causing considerable doubt and confusion about where our powers really lie?

Mr. Channon: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. As I told the House a moment ago, the entitlement of foreign beneficially-owned fishing vessels to remain United Kingdom-registered is now before the Court of Appeal so, I am not in a position to comment today.

Mr. Salmond: If the liberalisation of freight were to increase maritime traffic, how confident is the Secretary of State that the coastguard service could cope, given that the coastguard union has already argued that existing rationalisation is compromising public safety at sea?

Mr. Channon: I am confident that the coastguard service could cope. It is receiving a great deal of support from the Government. I am determined to improve it to provide an even higher standard, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that in practice. An event today has proved the point.

Roads Expenditure

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the expenditure per capita on roads in (a) the south-east and (b) other regions for the last three years for which figures are available.

Mr. Channon: Over the last three years, my Department's average annual expenditure on national roads has been £1814 per head in the south-east, and £17·68 per head across the country as a whole.

Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although those figures show that the south-east is marginally better off than the nation as a whole, many people in the south-east believe that our region does not get as much money as other regions? Bearing in mind the large level of commuting in the south-east, does he think that there should be better roads in the south-east'? In particular, when does he expect the Rayleigh weir underpass and the Rochford-Southend relief road, the 1013, to be finished?

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend will know, more than £1 billion has been spent in the past three years on building, improving and maintaining roads in the south-east and East Anglia. That represents 40 per cent. of total expenditure on national roads in that period. We are planning to spend over £ ½ billion next year alone on roads in that area.
As to my hon. Friend's specific question about Rayleigh weir, a matter which is close to my heart, we expect to issue invitations to tender in May or June, to award the contract in August or September, and to start work in the autumn. Advanced works are expected to start in May, and I expect later this week to announce a decision on further facilities to protect pedestrians.

Mr. Tony Banks: We in the south-east are quite happy if the right hon. Gentleman wants to switch expenditure on roads away from this area and to the north. It seems strange that those who want to use public transport in the south-east are now being expected to pay for that investment, whereas those who want roads will find them being provided out of general taxpayers' expenditure levels.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the motorist pays in vehicle excise duty and petrol tax much more than the cost of the roads. He is on a false point. On the question which concerns him about roads expenditure in London, he should not confuse the different issues of Greater London with the general issue of the need for roads in the south-east. Expenditure in London, which is a different matter and which I should be delighted to debate on another occasion, is much lower.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem which causes delays in the provision of an adequate road network in the south-east, which is crowded, and in other areas, is the slowness of the planning process? From the time that they are visualised, roads can take as long as 12 years to come to fruition. Will my right hon. Friend seek to find ways of speeding up the planning process, while still giving a right to be heard to those who are directly affected?

Mr. Channon: I certainly think that the process from start to finish is still too long. I am not sure whether much can be done in speeding up the planning process. I am determined to speed up the long procedures before roads get to the planning stage. We can probably manage to speed up that process by as much as three years. That will make a great difference to the roads programme.

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State is not doing very well in the east midlands region. Will he look seriously at the expenditure provided for the county councils which are responsible for the roads? The roads in the east midlands are shocking and it is high time that money was found for repairs to be done properly. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is supposed to be interested in safety on the roads and the east midlands' record is appalling. The Secretary of State should wake up and do something about it.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has done his best to make me wake up in his typical way and with his kind and courteous understatement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the east midlands, as indeed in other parts of the country, maintenance of a large proportion of the road network is the responsibility of the local authorities. He will also be interested to learn that the outturn on national roads expenditure in the east midlands in 1987–88 has now reached £83 million. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman would like to see it higher, but I believe that the figure speaks for itself.

Passenger Air Transport

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek further to deregulate passenger air transport in Europe.

Mr. Channon: Yes. The Community Ministers will be adopting further liberalising measures by June 1990. We have already given the Commission our views on what the measures should include, and copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Squire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, despite welcome advances, made in recent years, as of today the single fare for a flight from New York to Washington is £56? The single fare, however, for an identical distance in Europe—namely from London to Paris—is £88. Does that not show that we still have some way to go in deregulation?

Mr. Channon: Most certainly we do. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I expect that it is common ground throughout the House that European air fares are far too high. Our priority is to bring them down. We need much more real competition among airlines. However, several lower fares are available as a result of strenuous activities over the years. For example, the fare that Air Europe can offer from London to Paris is 12 per cent. lower than was previously available. We have other liberal bilateral arrangements with Ireland and the Netherlands and we hope that more will proceed shortly.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In encouraging deregulation and, obviously, an increase in air traffic, will the Secretary of State accept that safety must go hand in hand with that increase? In the light of the fire on the aircraft at Manchester airport, does he accept the need for smoke hoods on aircraft?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that safety must remain the top priority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and I understand that it is making a statement on all those matters this afternoon.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in discussions with the American Government about flights from Manchester to Boston and New York. Does he appreciate that north-west people want to fly direct from Manchester and not to have to come into Heathrow and Gatwick, and that they would prefer to do so via a privatised Manchester airport?

Mr. Channon: I think I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. I hope that further negotiations can take place about that matter. However, I was asked about deregulation of passenger air transport in Europe.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the studies of deregulation in the American air services have shown that fares have been reduced, but sometimes at the expense of the quality and safety of the service? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that economic and commercial pressures from the operators and the plane producers have combined to weaken the Government's power of enforcing safety? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the same pressures are more than evident in today's much delayed report on the Manchester inquiry, which shows that economic pressures for more seats reduced the possibility

of safe exit from the plane? The report of the inquiry has been delayed for far too long. The accident involved 55 deaths and that must justify our demands that the Secretary of State should now consider that his Department and the CAA are completely inadequate to deal with matters of safety and that they should be passed over to the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that we are not responsible for aviation safety, anyway. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for aviation safety which, if the hon. Gentleman had done one moment's homework he would have realised before he asked his ridiculous question.

Mr. Prescott: The report is to the right hon. Gentleman, and the CAA is answerable to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Channon: It is from the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman has done no homework on the subject at all.

Mr. Prescott: It is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has just read out his own brief of which he has not troubled to check the accuracy. He has not consulted his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should resign—[Interruption.] Beneath the bombast and rhetoric of the hon. Gentleman lies a serious point that has been answered by the CAA. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the Manchester air crash report, he will realise that as a result of what has been recommended the three and a half years spent on it will yield greater increases in safety.

London Road Assessment Studies

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the London road assessment studies.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: A number of representations have been received, including several from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that his Department is spending about £4 million on road assessment studies in London and that thousands of people have made representations, the majority of whom strongly oppose any new road building in London and resent the idea of a great deal of public money being spent on road building which can result only in the destruction of a large number of homes in my constituency and about 20 others? Does he acknowledge that the Department's current policy is, essentially, to subsidise the private commuter motorist through tax relief and road building and to punish public transport passengers, who account for 82 per cent. of commuter journeys, by making the fare-paying passenger pay for the new investment in public transport? In the circumstances, would it not be better to abandon the assessment studies and concentrate solely on improving public transport in London, diverting freight vehicles around London and improving the environment for Londoners rather than appeasing the road builders and the freight transport lobby?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman seems to have little idea about what is going on in London. London passenger transport is growing faster than in any capital city with the exception of the opening of the underground in Hong Kong. During the past five years Underground passenger journeys have increased by 70 per cent. and the number of British Rail season ticket holders has increased by 20 per cent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman listened with his ears rather than his mouth he would learn that the number of people commuting by car into central London has dropped from 190,000 per day to 160,000 per day. The hon. Gentleman should therefore be applauding the Government.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that any assessment of London roads must take into account the safety of children crossing those roads? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is virtually impossible to get lollipop ladies in my constituency and other parts of London because the pay is much too low? Will he see what he can do about increasing the pay levels for lollipop ladies and gentlemen?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. It would also help to try to separate through traffic from residential areas and to have safe routes to schools which do not require children to cross busy roads. Although that cannot be achieved everywhere at once, it is a worthwhile aim, whether in Haringey, Ealing or anywhere else in London. The casualty rate in London is higher than it should be. If we can go on with through roads and through traffic, which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will not like, and try to go for a partial exclusion of traffic and an emphasis on residents in some areas, we shall achieve mobility, access, environmental improvements and a reduction in casualties.

Ms. Ruddock: Despite the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will he acknowledge that the road assessment study proposals are meeting total opposition from local groups, from residents and even from a number of Conservative Members? Will he admit that the money being spent is an absolute waste because wherever the capacity of roads is increased in London it will simply mean an increase in car and lorry traffic? The Minister has said that he does not want that, so will he put an end to those foolish reports and get on with providing even more public transport in London and giving priority to buses on the roads rather than to private car users?

Mr. Bottomley: That is very interesting. If the hon. Lady had come with me by train to Wandsworth town about an hour ago, she would have seen how one of the objecting councils, Wandsworth, has just put four lanes of traffic into the southern end of Wandsworth bridge, paid for with public money. She might also have seen that one can go by bus from Cheyne Walk to Shepherds Bush, a journey which takes between 10 minutes and 40 minutes. If the western environmental improvement route proposal goes ahead it may be possible to achieve improvements for bus passengers.
If the hon. Lady also visited my constituency of Eltham and studied the Rochester Way relief road she would see how one can separate the through traffic from the local

traffic and give a great bonus to the local people. If the hon. Lady has a spare half day we might go round together and see some good road and rail improvements.

Central London Rail Study

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the central London rail study.

Mr. Channon: Relatively few as yet. It is still too early to expect many considered responses.

Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we have the busiest rail junction in the world, Clapham junction, but that it is not linked to the Underground system? Is he aware that the only part of the Underground system that runs through my constituency is the most inadequate bit of the whole system—the southern end of the Northern line—which, according to all the reports, cannot be improved? Will my right hon. Friend therefore respond to the genuine concerns and hopes of my constituents that the central London rail study will bring the Underground system south of the river to Clapham junction and beyond and thus provide a new link for local people and relieve the congestion on the Northern line?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general support of the central London rail study which, on the whole, has received a good reception. In spite of the present investment in London's rail services, more still needs to be done. We need to develop our plans to improve rail services and to cater for the demand that is forecast for the end of the century. The report has been published and I hope that hon. Members will let me have their views on it. We shall decide in the summer what is to be done.

Mr. Spearing: With regard to Clapham junction, the west London road assessment studies and the proposed west cross route, would it not be a good idea to electrify the line from Clapham junction to Willesden junction, which serves a number of important locations and was electrified before the war? Why does not the Secretary of State consider this in relation to the central London rail study? When is the closing date for observations? When the railways are built, what proportion of the cost will have to be met by passengers in increased fares—I believe that they should not bear any of the cost—and how much by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Channon: The exact way of costing these improvements—if we decide to go ahead with them—has yet to be decided. The cost will be met from a mixture of fares and—I hope—some contribution from the developers. Because of road congestion and for other reasons, some Government grant may be provided, but that is yet to be determined.
As regards the electrification of one particular line, the relevant issues were considered in the central London rail study. It is hoped that, all the options having been considered, the package produced will be the one most likely to make the maximum contribution to London. The House will want to consider whether that is so. I very much welcome views from Londoners and others as to which option we should take.

M40 (Waterstock to Wendlebury)

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement with regard to the Waterstock to Wendlebury section of the M40.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friends have decided that this final section of the M40 should go ahead as proposed. It will be built as a dual three-lane motorway. Subject to the remaining statutory procedures, we hope to start construction later this year for completion in 1991.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement that the route of the final section of the M40 has been agreed will be greeted ecstatically throughout Oxfordshire and the west midlands, where the announcement has been awaited for many years. It is also exceedingly good news that it is to be three lanes throughout. It will be recognised that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have taken infinite care in considering the inspector's report and deciding the right route. As regards any possible time gap in the opening of the M40, will my hon. Friend confirm that, following representations from me and from other hon. Members, there is to be a meeting next week at which we and other representatives of the community can put forward suggestions to ensure that the inconvenience caused by any time gap is kept to an absolute minimum?

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend's reaction and I know that he speaks for all those in the affected area. We have largely accepted the inspector's recommendations. We did not accept three of the recommended modifications because we were satisfied that their disadvantages—including delay—outweighed their advantages. As my hon. Friend said, he and other colleagues are concerned about the time gap. We are consulting hon. Members and county council members on the measures recommended by consultants to mitigate the effect on the trunk roads by completing the northern section first. I hope to make further announcements later.

Driving Standards

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are proposed for improving driving standards.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The biggest improvement would come if everyone drove as carefully and considerately as surveys show that they think they do, and nobody as badly as the same surveys show that they think other drivers do. There are good courses, videos and books available on how to improve techniques. The Institute of Advanced Motorists, for example, has just republished its motorway driving manual, which is full of practical advice.

Mr. Martin: I thank my hon. Friend for his impressive list of measures. In the spirit of his reply, would he agree that if some of those who drive on the roads were as sober as they believed that they were rather than as drunk as they believed others to be, the roads would be much safer and there would be less death and injury on them? Will my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, forthcoming legislation which will make the retaking of driving tests compulsory for those convicted of serious offences?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. Although we have the best record in Europe—I would argue that it is the best in the world in terms of population—we must still recognise that 5,000 deaths per year are too many. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target of cutting deaths and injuries by a third by the year 2000.
In terms of traffic, we have saved about 20 lives per week, and there is still further to go. I hope that all hon. Members will find local ways of ensuring that road users treat seriously the business of driving day by day: 5,000 deaths, 60,000 serious injuries and 300,000 other injuries are far too many.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Magistrates

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the recruitment of magistrates.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): My responsibility for the appointment of magistrates covers the shire county of Lancashire and the districts within the metropolitan counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside.
Any member of the public may serve as a magistrate. I am advised on the appointment of magistrates by advisory committees within the areas for which I am responsible. When a vacancy occurs, the relevant advisory committee puts forward recommendations to me.
Those who are appointed to a bench would normally expect to serve until their 70th birthday.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, especially in the Stockport part of my constituency and to a certain extent in the Tameside part, it appears that magistrates are not fairly appointed from all the wards in the local authority areas but tend to come from the more affluent areas? What steps will he take to ensure that there is proper representation on the bench in wards such as Brinnington and north and south Reddish?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that although we are anxious to have a proper geographical, social and occupational spread of magistrates we cannot force people to serve. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some difficulty in obtaining enough recommendations from some parts of the area with which he is concerned. I am grateful for his efforts to put forward or encourage recommendations over the years. A substantial number of the suggestions that have come from or through him have led to appointments. If the hon. Gentleman can give us any more help, it will be most welcome.

Mr. Skinner: How many of the magistrates appointed wear little aprons and roll up their trouser legs? What percentage of them are freemasons? Instead of appointing magistrates, why are they not chosen by ballot?

Mr. Newton: I do not know how many of the magistrates in that or any other area for which I am responsible are freemasons. I certainly do not think that they should be ruled out on those grounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Clerical Stipends

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what deductions are made from clerical stipends to take account of Easter collections; and what estimates have been made of such amounts for the current year.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Easter offerings are an integral part of the clergy's stipend, the total figure for which is fixed by the diocesan authorities having regard to the recommendations of the central stipends authority. No deductions of stipend are made in consequence of the receipt of Easter offerings, though to the extent that income is received in this form there is relief on the diocesan funding of stipends.

Mr. Greenway: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the happy and splendid tradition in the Church of England according to which members of the congregation could put money on the plate on Easter Sunday as a direct gift for the vicar or rector? Is it not sad that that tradition has now become so muted? What can be done to ensure that vicars receive a present from their parishioners in the old way? How about an Easter egg for the vicar?

Mr. Alison: If the Easter offering went directly to the incumbent, it would be taxable. To that extent, it is better that it should be treated like all other weekly church collections and taken to the diocese, where it avoids tax. I would rather not comment on the subject of eggs for the Easter offering.

No. 1 Millbank

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the progress of the building work at No. 1 Millbank.

Mr. Alison: Work is progressing well, and the new accommodation for commercial letting is expected to be complete by the beginning of 1990. The commissioners have recently accepted an offer for the tenancy of that accommodation and it is hoped that the Church of England pension board will take up its new accommodation in the Millbank complex in May this year.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to my previous question about moving Church Commissioners' offices to areas of high unemployment? Will he ask those responsible for security whether No. 1 Millbank would be of use as secure accommodation for Members of Parliament with fears about security?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will understand that the leaders of the Church of England, whether lay or ordained, clerical or episcopal, need to be relatively close to the centre of state power. It is, after all, an established Church. My hon. Friend might start a systematic programme of questions to see whether we might relocate Parliament and Whitehall, but until he succeeds in that respect we must leave the Church Commissioners where they are.

Mr. Frank Field: Might not the Government take the Church more seriously on the need to rebuild the inner cities if it moved its headquarters to such a site?

Mr. Alison: No. 1 Millbank could be entirely rebuilt if it were possible to evacuate both the pensions board and the Church Commissioners to a location such as Church House, but Church House as at present constructed is not large enough to accommodate the General Synod as well as the pensions board and the Commissioners. For that reason, it would be difficult to find a building into which to decant the present occupants while No. 1 Millbank was reconstructed. That is the basic problem.

St. Leonards, Swithland (Benefices)

Mr. Latham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commission has received any proposal for the reorganisation of benefices affecting the parish of St. Leonards, Swithland, in the county of Leicestershire.

Mr. Alison: Yes, Sir. The commissioners have published a draft scheme based on these proposals and, having received representations, are consulting the diocesan bishop.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Swithland rectory in the constituency of my necessarily Trappist hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) was donated to the Church less than 30 years ago so that the incumbent could live there? Given that a thousand ages let alone 30 years are but an instant in the sight of the Almighty, is it not unseemly for the rectory to be alienated so soon against the wishes of the benefactor?

Mr. Alison: This is one of the complications that have arisen as a result of the proposed reorganisation scheme. It will have to be considered actively by the pastoral committee and the board of governors when they consider objections to the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Commission is due to meet next; and what topics will be discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): Neither the date nor the agenda for the next meeting has yet been fixed.

Mr. Allen: Will the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission comment on EEC fraud, which is now running at some £6 billion including CAP and other cross-border frauds? Does he feel that the National Audit Office is adequately equipped to meet this particular and growing challenge?

Sir Peter Hordern: Strictly speaking, this is more a matter for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee but I recognise that this is a most serious matter. In considering the National Audit Office estimates, the Commission has to satisfy itself that the NAO has the capacity to carry out the tasks given to it by Parliament. I understand that the NAO has provided written evidence to


the European Parliament budgetary control committee for a public hearing on preventing and combating fraud in the European Community after 1992, and that the NAO joins in regular meetings with representatives of the national audit bodies of the other Community countries, at which this is one of the matters discussed.

Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continuing consternation in all parts of the House that he is not permanently on the Treasury Bench? As he is seated below the Gangway, can he arrange to answer questions more frequently in the House?

Sir Peter Hordern: That is not a matter for me.

National Audit Office

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will list those public bodies whose accounts are audited by the National Audit Office; and if he will list the audit fees charged in each case.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office at present audits some 470 accounts. I will write to my hon. Friend giving him the list that he requires. The Comptroller and Auditor General has informed me that, under section 5 of the National Audit Act, in 1987–88 the National Audit Office charged a fee for the audit of 142 accounts. The total income from fees in that year was £3·8 million.

Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for not reading out the entire list, which would have run the risk of filibustering my supplementary. Accepting that the National Audit Office is entirely independent, could my hon. Friend not arrange with the Comptroller and Auditor General to fix a level of employees, expenditure and audit fee below which the National Audit Office would normally employ a private firm of auditors?

Sir Peter Hordern: I will pass on my hon. Friend's interesting idea to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but an increasing amount of work is carried out by private sector firms on behalf of the National Audit Office. Additional provision is made in the 1989–90 estimate for that purpose.
Nevertheless, the Commission has taken the view that, as Parliament intended that under the National Audit Act the National Audit Office should undertake examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which Departments and other public bodies use taxpayers' money entrusted to them, it is often more efficient for the National Audit Office to couple this value-for-money examination with the certification audit of those bodies' accounts.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give general circulation to the information that he has undertaken to supply to his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) so that all hon. Members may know which bodies are audited by the NAO?

Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly consider that and pass the request on to the Comptroller and Auditor General as it is a little difficult to list all 470-odd bodies in Hansard.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Procedure Committee (Reports)

Mr. Allen: To ask the President of the Council if he will list the topics covered by those reports of the Procedure Committee which have not been debated by the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): All Procedure Committee reports since 1979 have been debated with the exception of the first report of 1984–85, dealing with the printing of oral questions to the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a ruling by Mr. Speaker on 15 April 1985 and implemented with effect from 30 April 1985. and the special report on Government replies to reports from the Committee which was published only last Tuesday.

Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those outstanding matters are considered? Will he also consider something which is not directly within the remit of the Procedure Committee—bringing forward for early discussion the reports on private Member's Bill procedure?

Mr. Wakeham: I will see that a reply is given to the outstanding report, and I will seek to have any further reports that are received debated at the most appropriate time.

Sir John Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend a more fundamental question about this whole matter? Is there any means by which we can debate topics which are most important to ordinary people but which are seldom debated here, such as immigration and capital punishment?

Mr. Wakeham: The business of the House is arranged to meet many eventualities. Hon. Members on both sides of the House press subjects on me which they believe to be important. No doubt they have consulted their constituents about those subjects. I do my best to meet as many of their requirements as possible. I very much regret that it is not possible to arrange debates on all the interesting subjects which are proposed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes).

Mr. Sims: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the House about the way in which we handle private Members' Bills and that a combination of frustration and misunderstanding among our constituents is in danger of bringing parliamentary procedures into disrepute? Is it not important that we have an early opportunity to debate these matters and to consider in detail the specific proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee to try to tackle the problem?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the Procedure Committee is now having another look at those proposals. I recognise that there is dissatisfaction in some quarters about the way in which private Members' Bills are handled in the House. With regard to the last report, even the Procedure Committee, while making some suggestions for improvement, recognised that it was not always possible for everyone with a private Member's Bill to get it through the House, even if there was a majority in favour of it.

Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the handling of private Bills which may be highly contentious but which are not amended in Committee? The fact that they are not amended means that the Report stage is avoided entirely and only insubstantive verbal amendments can be taken on Third Reading. That does not make those Bills any less contentious, as we know is the case with one Bill which may be before the House before long. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the present rule with regard to the abandonment of Report stage?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that any Bill, however contentious, must come before the House and that there must be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to express a view and vote on it, whether or not it is amended. It is a wide question, and one directly relevant to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. I have undertaken to arrange a debate on that Committee's report soon after Easter.

Mr. Marlow: What procedure does my right hon. Friend suggest should be used to ensure that the issue of abortion law reform is properly, effectively and perhaps finally addressed? Is he aware that the current procedures are bringing the House into contempt with the public as well as wasting a great deal of private Members' time?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's view is that that subject is best dealt with by the private Member's Bill procedure. I recognise that Bills in recent years have not been successful. That was due to a number of reasons. It has been suggested to me that the Government should consider the matter and perhaps take steps themselves to deal with it. I have not committed the Government to doing so, but I am considering the suggestions that have been made to me.

Westminster Hall

Mr. Tony Banks: To as the Lord President of the Council if he will consider taking steps to increase the use of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Wakeham: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 31 October last.

Mr. Banks: That is very helpful. I remind the Lord President that in the 18th century, Westminster Hall was humming with life and vitality. It is sad to see it being so underused. Indeed, it is bordering on the criminal to leave that space in its present state. Will the Lord President consider a number of proposals for bringing life back into Westminster Hall? Shops could be opened there. Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study a proposal by the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee which I read in a newspaper, that the souvenir kiosk should be moved there and its range of facilities and items for sale extended? Will the Lord President consider that proposal very seriously so that a little more life can be brought back into Westminster Hall?

Mr. Wakeham: It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that in my previous reply I pointed out that responsibility for Westminster Hall is vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker. The principles which govern their decision as to its use require the hall to be used only

for parliamentary functions, royal occasions, a ceremony in honour of a head of state, or for events with a clear historical connection with Parliament or with the Great Hall itself. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was of the opinion that the infrequency of the Great Hall's use contributed to its character. I share that view. If the hon. Gentleman has any proposals, I suggest that he puts them to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that a plaque should shortly be installed in Westminster Hall commemorating the visit of Her Majesty the Queen last year to receive the Addresses of both Houses in regard to the Bill of Rights—an event of great interest to schoolchildren, or at least to some of them, who visit the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly ensure that that suggestion is considered by those responsible for such matters.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Lord President's comment about infrequency of use has its novelty interest, but that is not a very practical approach to one problem that exists. The right hon. Gentleman has probably never had to wait in the pouring rain with visiting parties of constituents, many of them elderly, who may have travelled several hundred miles and have to wait up to three quarters of an hour before gaining access to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at early-day motion 133, signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, requesting that the hall be used for the benefit of constituents who travel long distances to the Houses of Parliament, possibly just once in their lives, and who should be able at least to wait in the dry and to pass through security screens in the dry?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the problem. The point has been considered but there are a number of difficulties, not least in terms of security. In the first instance, this is a matter for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Televising of Proceedings

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is able to announce the date for the televising of the proceedings of the House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. This is a matter for the House to decide on the basis of the report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the Budget debate will not be televised tomorrow? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech last year that that would be the last untelevised Budget debate. Has he got it wrong again? He got the balance of payments deficit wrong—it was to be £4 billion and has reached £14·3 billion. He got interest rates wrong; he got mortgages wrong; he has got nearly every sum in his book wrong. Who is holding up the television job? Is it the Prime Minister?

Mr. Wakeham: If the substance of the hon. Gentleman's complaint against my right hon. Friend the


Chancellor is that he said that the Budget debate would be on television but that it is not to be televised the hon. Gentleman must be short of something to say. I believe that the truth is that he cannot wait to become a television

star himself. Perhaps I should remind him that there is a vacancy for the part of Dirty Den in a certain television soap opera.

Skills Training Agency

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of the Skills Training Agency.
The Skills Training Agency provides training mainly in traditional craft skills through a network of 60 skill centres. Skill centres date back to the first world war, when they were set up to retrain service men for civilian employment. The agency has operated on a trading account basis since 1984. Its predominant source of income has been selling training services to the Manpower Services Commission and now to my Department's Training Agency for the training of unemployed people.
In the last five years the agency has financially broken even only in 1987, and this year it is expected to make a loss of approaching £20 million. At present 20 of the centres are seriously under-utilised. These centres are mostly, although not exclusively, in the south of England, where unemployment has now fallen substantially.
The Government have carefully considered the way forward. We believe that the aim should be to enable the skill centres to become a viable business, carrying out training not just for unemployed people but for employed people under contract with employers. Such employer business is now rapidly expanding, and will expand further.
As I told the House before, I commissioned Deloitte Haskins and Sells in December to advise me on the feasibility of moving the skill centres to the private sector. Deloittes has now reported, and advises that there is a viable core business of skill centres and that there is no reason why the agency should not move to the private sector.
In the meantime, there has been a significant development. I have now been approached by some of the senior staff of the Skills Training Agency who would like to mount a management buy-out. They have taken professional advice, and like Deloittes they believe that a business can be created which has excellent prospects of success. The management buy-out team would wish to develop training for employers as well as for unemployed people. The Government see great attractions in that course. We want the Skills Training Agency to become a viable business that provides good training for both unemployed and employed people and a good career for the staff who work in it. A management buy-out would be a most effective way of ensuring that.
In the light of the approach made to me, I have appointed Deloittes to conduct the necessary preparatory work with a view to offering the agency for sale through a private tender process. That sale will be open to all interested parties, but I intend to give the management buy-out team assistance to make a bid. I attach great importance to conducting the sale in a way that minimises uncertainty for both the agency's staff and its customers.
I will ensure through the contract of sale that all staff who transfer into the private sector are satisfactorily covered by pension arrangements. All other terms and conditions are covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and a new

clause to the Employment Bill is being tabled today to ensure that staff are protected on transfer to the private sector by those regulations.
Given the current position of the Skills Training Agency, change is both necessary and desirable. In particular, the agency needs to expand rapidly and training that it provides for employers, as well as continuing to improve the training that it gives for unemployed people. I believe that it is now important to move as quickly as possible to remove the uncertainty. I am certain that the agency has a good future in the private sector. A successful move to the private sector will provide a better career for the staff and a more effective contribution to our national training effort.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement today means that the entire public training and employment service is to be dismembered, and almost his entire Department privatised? With the hiving-off of the public employment service later this year to an independent agency and the privatisation of training for the training and enterprise councils, it is the third and final step in the removal of all employment and training functions to the private sector.
The right hon. Gentleman failed to give the House some of the fundamental facts. What is his estimate of the Skills Training Agency's assets? What guarantee will there be against asset-stripping? I understand that, when Deloittes visited the skills centre at Reading, significantly it examined only the land area and its value. Will he take into account the public cost of redundancies and dole payments in the sale price? What credence can staff put on his assurance today that their terms and conditions will be protected by the transfer of undertakings regulations when he has made clear that he intends to repeal those regulations? Is he aware that staff know nothing about a management buy-out and have not been consulted?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is abundant evidence that the untrammelled free market does not work with training and that the MSC was created precisely because of the failings of the private sector? Is he aware that no single successful economy in Europe is without either a state infrastructure for training or the most tightly controlled requirements on employers to meet given targets? Neither is present in the right hon. Gentleman's statement today. Is he aware that, precisely because private employers grossly neglected training in the past, the latest chamber of commerce survey shows that 65 per cent. of manufacturing companies are limited by skills shortages? Yet the right hon. Gentleman now wants to hand over the training of the nation's work force to the very people who have failed to train their own employees.
The right hon. Gentleman says that privatisation will enable the Skills Training Agency to use commercial practices to seize more opportunities. When we compare the performance of public and private agencies in the employment services, the private sector gives extremely poor value for money. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his answer on 21 February that agency job clubs that have been hived off spend £396 on average to get an unemployed person into a job, while jobcentre job clubs in the public sector spend only £249—little more than half as much? Is he aware that the hived-off job clubs get only 50 per cent. of their clients into jobs, while the public sector finds jobs for 55 per cent. of its clients?
Is it not clear from what has happened to the job clubs that moving the Skills Training Agency into the private sector will produce a worse service at substantially higher cost? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he privatised the Professional and Executive Register nearly a year ago he said, just as he has said today, that it would unleash greater commercial drive? Does he recall that within six months one fifth of all the premises were closed down? What guarantee can he give that the same will not happen in this case?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the major losers by today's announcement will be the long-term unemployed? The Skills Training Agency currently devotes 80 per cent. of its resources to the unemployed. If it is privatised, that proportion will undoubtedly reduce sharply. Since the numbers of those who have been unemployed for more than three or five years are still increasing, what hope will there be that they will ever get jobs?
The Skills Training Agency broke even in 1987 and it lost money last year only because of ET. It provides quality training up to City and Guilds standard, much higher than ET. If it is privatised it will be forced by commercial market pressures to switch to lower budget, high volume, quick turnover and low-skill schemes. There will be no national perspective on a desperate national problem. It is not only the unemployed who will be the losers; it will be the nation.

Mr. Fowler: I must say that the hon. Gentleman has a long and persistent record of getting all his predictions wrong. He has added to it yet again today. On training and the general points that he makes about the training and enterprise councils, he was condemned only yesterday by that well-known Conservative newspaper, the Sunday Mirror. Today, the labour force survey shows that for months he has been trying to fiddle upwards the unemployment figures. So I am not inclined to take too many lectures from the hon. Gentleman.
Let me try to spell it out. The case for action is that the present position is not sustainable. One third of the skill centres are seriously under-utilised. They are making a loss approaching £20 million a year on a turnover of £55 million a year. They have made a loss in all but one of the last five years. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman might concede that ET was introduced only last September. The Public Accounts Committee has made it clear that there is no case for subsidising the Skills Training Agency and that subsidies must stop. I agree with that. I and the Government want to provide skill centres that give good training for both employed and unemployed people. I hope that that will be the result of the change.
There is no merit in having a whole range of half-empty skill centres. That is not doing anything for anyone. We are selling a training business, and what I am interested in are bids from people who want to run a training business. The management buy-out learn wants that, and I know of others.
On property, we shall get an up-to-date assessment of the value of every property before the sale, and the Government will share in any development gains in the years immediately after the sale. We shall make provision for that.
As to the management buy-out, it is led by Mr. Stuart Bishell. the deputy chief executive of the Skills Training

Agency. The team sees an exciting future for the business and we shall provide financial assistance for the professional advice that it has.
The hon. Gentleman talked about PER. At the moment something like 150 of the 250 staff seconded to it remain with PER. What I remember about management buy-outs is the National Freight Corporation, which was also opposed entirely by the Opposition team, not least by the shadow Leader of the House, and which turned out to be an enormous success, acknowledged even on the Opposition side. The Government should wait before he condemns.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and many of my hon. Friends welcome very much the proposed change in the status of the Skills Training Agency? There is a crying need in the south-east in particular for a level of training and a sophisticated approach to it far in advance of anything that the Skills Training Agency has been able to provide. In private hands there will be a real opportunity to provide exactly the kind of training for which employers in our area are crying out.

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that what my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. What is crucial is that the Skills Training Agency develops training not just for unemployed people—although, clearly, that is very important—but for people who are in employment. That is not just a very good market but an area that will expand, and I believe that, operating in the private sector, the Skills Training Agency can serve that end.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Select Committee inquired into the Skills Training Agency in 1984 we were assured by his predecessor that it was necessary, in the public interest, to keep a national network of skill centres "to act as a pace setter"—those are his words—that this network would be under the control of the Department, and that it was of the smallest viable size? Can he explain why he has gone back on that? He said that the STA broke even in 1987 but that it will lose £20 million this year. Is he aware that the reason for that—as I discovered when I visited my local skill centre a fortnight ago—is that, whereas previously it was receiving £150 a week for its training programme, it gets only £30 a week under the new ET programme? That is why it has gone into the red.
What guarantees can the Secretary of State give concerning the future size of the national network? Can he guarantee that, under the new dispensation, it will remain at its present size? If that does not happen, he will have destroyed a valuable training asset.

Mr. Fowler: Clearly, I cannot give a guarantee about the size before I have had offers and the sale process has begun. Obviously, what I would like to do is preserve as many skill centres as possible to provide the kind of training network that the hon. Gentleman wants. If the scheme were to remain in the public sector, there would be a large-scale programme of closures throughout the country. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must accept that that is the alternative.
Again I have to point out that we are talking about losses that have occurred not just in the last 12 months but over the last five years. The hon. Gentleman referred to 1987. With his knowledge, he will realise that, although the


Skills Training Agency did break even in one year, it was a very marginal thing. In the other four of the five years, it made losses.
The policy was set out very clearly in the White Paper that I published before Christmas. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Select Committee, has interviewed me about that. We want good training for both unemployed and employed people. I want to see the skill centres operating more effectively in the private sector, and I certainly hope that training will continue in inner cities and in other areas of that kind. I am convinced that this is the best prospect for the agency.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend ought not to be discouraged by the entirely predictable, negative and old-fashioned attitude of the Opposition to what, after all, is very good news. If the management of this agency, which is losing money at present, is prepared to risk its own money to bring it up to date and give it a really good future, that is something that should be welcomed with great enthusiasm. A commercial attitude is much more likely to lead to the provision of proper skills training for the future.

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The fact of the matter is that Opposition Members—at least those on the Front Bench—have opposed every measure of this kind. It is significant that, once operations have been moved to the private sector, one hears very little about Opposition Members wanting those operations to be returned to the public sector. I think that that will be the situation here. What we want is an effective private sector operation, using marketing and other commercial skills, and, above all, providing training for both unemployed and employed people.

Ms. Clare Short: I think we have now moved into the mad Maoist phase of this Government, who are smashing up our national institutions. Because of their mad belief in the power of market forces, they are doing enormous damage. Does not the Secretary of State understand that training, like education, does not make a profit but is an investment for individuals, for the country and for the economy?
The reason the skills centre network has been whittled back and, as the Secretary of State said, is losing money is that he has reduced expenditure on training, and our economy is showing the resulting skills shortages.
It is notable that the Secretary of State said that there is a "viable core" in our training network. That implies major closures and selling off land to make a profit for the few who might go along with the privatisation. Will the Secretary of State give me an absolute guarantee that the Handsworth skills centre will remain open, as it has done valuable work in an area of massive unemployment, despite the constant cuts imposed by the Government?

Mr. Fowler: I repeat what I said but, as it happens, the Handsworth centre is one of those that is generally reckoned to be part of the core business that would exist in the private sector. That is recognised by both Deloittes and the management buy-out team.
The hon. Lady may go on about the cause of all this but one of the great causes is that when unemployment decreases there is a reduction in the demand for training

for unemployed people. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that unemployment has decreased.
The pity has been that we have not been able to develop training for employed people and for employers in the way that should have happened. There is no merit in having half-empty skill centres. I remind the House that the all-party Public Accounts Committee—[Interruption]—this was before the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was a Member of the House—said that there was absolutely no case for subsidies in this sphere. The present financial position of the Skills Training Agency is a loss of about £20 million on a turnover of £55 million. That cannot be justified. I should like to see a future for the agency and I believe that that will be ensured in the private sector. The proposals of the management buy-out team are an encouraging step forward.

Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a large welcome for this move from everybody who has had any real involvement in training at the coal face, and that there is a great deal of difference between the funding of training and its delivery? Does he also accept that the public sector does not have a monopoly in quality training because the private sector has already demonstrated that it can produce quality training for a large range of skills and at all levels of requirement?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Over the past four or five years, the amount and quality of training that has been carried out by the best employers in this country has been very good. As I said on Friday, at the launch of the training and enterprise councils, the aim must now be to bring the level of the rest up to the level of the best and, in the private sector, the Skills Training Agency will be able to help in that respect.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Notwithstanding the continuing and inadequate levels of training and skills training in this country, if the Secretary of State is to withdraw his Department from this aspect of what should be its legitimate activity, does he accept that a management buy-out seems the least offensive of all the possible options? That being the case, will he give some more information about the type of support that will be provided—to which he alluded in his statement—for those preparing and bringing forward such a management buy-out, especially if he is to adjudicate—presumably this is the case—on the eventual outcome of that process?
Will the Secretary of State note that this country's training policy continues to lag woefully behind those of our major industrial competitors, such as Europe, North America and Japan, in that for over a generation we as a country have not geared the potential of young people coming on to the labour market to the practicalities of the industrial market at home and the export market abroad? If the Government continue to sell off, to privatise and to withdraw from their role, how will we ever overcome that inbuilt disadvantage in our system?

Mr. Fowler: That is the whole point and reason for setting up the training and enterprise councils, which I announced at the end of last week. The purpose of this change is to improve training standards not only for young people—although that is important—but to help people who have been in employment for 10 or 20 years to become


qualified and remain qualified. That is the major, No. I, aim of the training and enterprise councils. The people concerned in the management buy-out understand and know the business, and to that extent they are in a position to develop it. They are led by the deputy chief executive and two senior colleagues of the Skills Training Agency, who will now hold further talks in the agency, which until now have been confidential. We shall be giving financial assistance to help with professional advice. I believe that they have a contribution to make.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that skill centres can be sold off individually, because no doubt one or two training companies will wish to bid for some of their local skill centres? Will he confirm that of 3,000 staff, 1,600 are administrators? Is not this top-heavy structure the clearest possible evidence that no business should be run by politicians or bureaucrats and that privatisation is urgently needed?

Mr. Fowler: The Skills Training Agency has about 3,000 staff—1,600 instructors, 400 industrial staff and about 1,000 administrative staff. We expect and hope to see a core business with a range of skill centres within it, but that does not mean that offers cannot be made for individual centres. I believe that this is the best way forward for the Skills Training Agency. No change is not an option, as anyone who has objectively considered the matter must accept.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is not skill training in Britain a complete shambles? First, the Government abolished almost all the industrial training boards. A short time afterwards, skill centres were closed. Subsequently, the Employment Select Committee held an inquiry and found that skill centres were making a profit. The right hon. Gentleman justifies the Government's decision by saying that they are making a loss, but is it not a fact that places at skill centres have not been taken up because industrialists have not played their part in filling them? Is it not a fact that we have the worst record in Europe, and probably the developed world, for skill shortages? When will the Government stop pampering industrialists and introduce one or two penalties to ensure that places are filled and skill training offered?

Mr. Fowler: As far as I understood the hon. Gentleman, he is advocating directing industrialists to use skill training centres, which is a curious policy. I entirely agree that there is a difference between that and direction, which is what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) require. I should like the Skills Training Agency to provide good training for employers and people in employment, but all too often it does not do so. It has not developed its business quickly or rapidly enough. I should like it to achieve that aim, and if it does so it will attract business from employers, who certainly understand the point and need for further training.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is probable that the beneficiaries of this change will be the unemployed? If, through efficiency and a more commercial approach, it leads to resources being released, and if the skill centres can improve the range and relevance of the courses that they offer, it will be to their advantage. I have a particular interest as president of

Sussex Training (West), the local agency for the youth training scheme, and Downs Enterprise Agency Ltd. Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the future role of the training agencies in their new relationship with the management bought-out Skills Training Agency? The White Paper seems to suggest that the Skills Training Agency will almost take over the raison d'étre of some of the training agencies, many of which, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees, are doing an excellent job in training young people and providing them with permanent employment.

Mr. Fowler: We do not want existing organisations which are doing a good job to be taken over. We do not, for example, want the training and enterprise councils to take over organisations in the area and to push them to one side. That is not the purpose. The purpose of the training and enterprise councils is to act as a focus for training in the local area and to enable more training to take place, which is exactly what my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members have been asking for. I hope that I have assured my hon. Friend. I agree that, the better the training centres, the better the service will be for unemployed people.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Does the Secretary of State accept that his bellicose remarks to my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) show that, in spite of the numerous statements he has made in the House and outside, he is hiding the Government's total failure on engineering and other training? Does he not accept that the nation is on the point of collapse in employment training? He should take note of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley—that direction is the only way to obtain results with bad employers. One cannot rely on good will, so one must use compulsion. What reason does the Secretary of State have to believe that the people involved in the management buy-out will be skilled enough to succeed when it seems that up to now they have failed as much as the Secretary of State has failed?

Mr. Fowler: I have taken the trouble to see the people who are leading the management buy-out team. I leave others to judge, but I regard Mr. Bishell, for example, as an outstanding leader in that organisation. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about the nation being on the verge of collapse. However, he is at least frank in saying that he wants to see employers being compelled and directed to use skill training centres. I do not believe that such a position would work and it is not a way of providing training. One of this Government's greatest achievements is that, over the past 18 months, unemployment has come down by almost I million and the figures are now established, to the eternal discredit of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. John Maples: I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage the management buy-out. Does he agree that the evidence of the National Freight Corporation shows any doubters just how advantageous and successful a management buy-out can be in the public sector for employees and for clients? May I urge him to go a little easier on the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has an uncomfortable week ahead of him eating all the words in the labour force survey?

Mr. Fowler: I take my hon. Friend's point. Tomorrow, we have Employment Questions, in which the hon. Gentleman will doubtless seek to defend his position on the labour force survey. My hon. Friend was right about the National Freight Corporation. When I came to the House almost 10 years ago to announce a management buy-out, it was opposed loudly and by no one more than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

Mr. Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State has said that once.

Mr. Fowler: A good line is worth repeating. Few people, even Opposition Members, would now advocate that the National Freight Corporation should go back to the public sector.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What fees were paid to Deloitte for past work? What fees are to be paid for future work? What did Deloitte do in Scotland and the north of England? What were the qualifications of the Deloitte staff? What experience did they have? What was said about land values—which are considerable—going not to the Treasury, but to the privatised company? Who put the case for the long-term unemployed? Did Deloitte discuss the management buy-out statement with Stuart Bishell and if so, what was said? What is the connection of Deloitte with a prominent Conservative Member of Parliament? How much did Deloitte contribute to Conservative party funds?

Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it reasonable for my right hon. Friend to be expected to memorise six or seven questions?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot comment on whether it is reasonable to memorise so many questions.

Mr. Fowler: Whether it is reasonable or not, Mr. Speaker, I do not have all the information that the hon. Gentleman requires. I shall let him know about the fees given to Deloitte. Deloitte was employed on the basis of its acknowledged expertise in the area. It was employed to give advice to me on the feasibility of privatising—

Mr. Dalyell: How much were the fees?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he may get some answers before asking more questions.
Deloitte was employed to give advice on the feasibility of privatising the organisation. On property, it is a direct recommendation of Deloitte, which we shall follow, to obtain an up-to-date assessment of the value of every property before the sale takes place. That was one of the crucial provisions. On the interview for the management buy-out, Deloitte talked to the management buy-out team. Deloitte talked about the feasibility of the buy-out, which was one of the factors taken into account.

Mr. Dalyell: How much were the fees?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman once. I call Mr. Colin Shepherd.

Mr. Dalyell: This is an absolute racket. I asked a direct question.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: How much was paid?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I know that he is upset about not having all his questions answered, but that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of private sector training companies, in areas where there is no skill centre, in achieving an enhanced level of skill capabilities across the spectrum means that it does not matter who owns the skill centres provided they deliver the goods? Is it not the case that the rigid Civil Service structure of the skill centres makes it impossible to recruit skilled instructors in a highly competitive environment, such as electronics, so they are not delivering the goods?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I must say first to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that we shall try to obtain the figure for him. I do not have the figure now. If we can obtain the figure before I sit down, I shall give it to him here. Otherwise I shall write to him.
My hon. Friend is correct on what he said about the training provision. It does not matter which sector the training organisation is in. In this case a private sector organisation can provide better training for employed people and facilitate training by employers.

Mr. Peter Hardy: After 10 years of power and a series of major changes in employment training provision, the Secretary of State must answer many more questions than he has attempted to answer this afternoon. Will he respond to the one question that should be dominant? Is employment training in this country today superior to, as good as or worse than that in all competing countries?

Mr. Fowler: No, not all competing countries. The training and enterprise councils are intended to improve training standards. Not just in the past 10 years, but in the 10 years before that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, in the 10 years before that we were behind Germany, Japan and the United States in training employed people. We now seek to improve our standards and, as I have suggested, the way to do that is to set up the training and enterprise councils, which will engage the attention and enthusiasm of employers. A good feature of the training and enterprise councils proposal is that employers are responding to it. They want to take part in the councils in the interests of improving training in this country.

Mr. Michael Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition had read his employment White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", they would not have reacted with such surprise to his welcome announcement today? Will he confirm that he will do all in his power to maintain the skill centres in the north-west of England and that in their new privatised role they will be able to react more flexibly to the shortage of skills in industries such as electronics? Will he confirm that that will be of great value to industry in the north-west?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right on both points. We set out the policy in the White Paper, which was published before Christmas; the hon. Member for Oldham, West


responded to that point. The skill training centres in the north and in Scotland and Wales are among the strongest in the network.

Mr. David Tredinnick: (Bosworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leicestershire business men—business men in Hinckley in my constituency in particular—with whom I discussed the proposal on Friday will welcome the transfer to the private sector? We have serious skills shortages in Hinkley, and business men believe that the transfer will provide a more flexible response to training need, which is lacking at present, and that it will put an end to ridiculous excess capacity in training establishments.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. Many people throughout the country—including many of the staff inside the Skills Training Agency—will welcome the changes. No change is simply not an option for the agency. The present proposals give the prospect of good careers for the staff and better training for the public.

Mr. Meacher: Is it not an extraordinary and reprehensible omission that the Secretary of State cannot provide figures for the fees to be paid to Deloitte, given that huge rake-offs to City accountants have been such a prominent feature of all previous privatisations? Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State is promoting a management buy-out that he knows that no one else will tender for the Skills Training Agency while it is encumbered with ET? Is he aware that it is the 31 per cent. shortfall in ET placements in skill centres that has caused under-utilisation and a deficit in this financial year, compared with a £200,000 operating surplus the previous year? Is it not his intention to bribe the management buy-out team with the offer of asset-stripping and the selling-off of valuable sites in the south-east in return for their continuing to patronise his increasingly discredited ET programme.

Mr. Fowler: That is even more ridiculous than the hon. Gentleman's previous statements; he is getting hysterical. As I told the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I shall provide the figure. I do not have it with me. The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not even raise this question in his first lengthy intervention.
Other people are interested in tendering. That is why we are making it a general offer for sale. In any case, the loss to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not suddenly appeared in the past 12 months; it has been taking place for the past four or five years.

Birds Eye Factory, Kirkby

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Birds Eye factory in Kirkby.
Last Friday, the 1,000 workers at the Birds Eye factory received news which, for people in Kirkby and in Merseyside in general, came as a cruel kick in the teeth. At about 10 am they were told that the factory is to close, with the loss of all 1,000 jobs. Job losses are always a cause for concern. But in Knowsley—arguably one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom—the job losses are nothing short of a disaster.
Over the past 30 years, the people of Kirkby have given a great deal of loyalty to the Birds Eye company. Even now, it is not uncommon for two generations of a family—man or wife and son or daughter—to work together at the factory. Moreover, at a time when the country faces a crisis in manufacturing, the closure represents the loss of real jobs producing goods which, for the most part, have a market. The harsh and sad reality is, such is the scale of unemployment in the area, that, if the proposals are implemented, many of the Birds Eye workers will never work again.
A further cruel and callous twist was added to the drama on Friday. By an unhappy coincidence, the Prime Minister was visiting Liverpool on that day and, as I understand it, purely on the basis of a Birds Eye-Walls press handout, chose to condemn the workers. That is her prerogative, although it would have been much fairer had she first checked the facts.
If the House is representative of the country, arid if we are sensitive to the feelings of men and women in these awful circumstances, we must find time to debate the matter. My constituents will be bitterly disappointed if we do not.
The whole community is behind the Birds Eye workers and their trade unions in the struggle to keep these much-needed jobs. We do not accept the inevitability of the closure and I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Birds Eye workers and to help them to keep the jobs in Kirkby.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Birds Eye factory at Kirkby with a loss of 1,000 jobs.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, my sole duty is considering his application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House, although he may have an opportunity to raise the matter later today.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During your Speakership, you have always been concerned with the proper treatment of the House. I put it to you that it is extraordinary that a senior Secretary of State should come here to make a prepared statement, with the support of three junior Ministers and with eight civil servants in the Box, without bringing the information that we seek. He was asked a very direct question about the cost of the report on which the whole policy seems to be based—the Deloitte report—but no figure has been forthcoming. Is it not most extraordinary that the Secretary of State, who should be prepared in such matters, cannot answer an obvious, factual question?
Furthermore, a great deal of money is involved, as some extremely expensive properties are at stake. Without assuming that there is corruption, the House of Commons is at least entitled to ask questions, as large sums are at stake and as it is not at all clear whether benefit will accrue to the Treasury or to some private interest after privatisation.
Clearly, if everything is above board—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but ministerial answers to questions are not among my many responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman must pursue the matter by other methods, and may even have other opportunities to do so today on the Adjournment motion.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Perhaps I can help the House. As in all these matters, which company was to give advice was a matter of open competition. We do not just choose one company, we have open competition between several. Deloitte was chosen. I am advised that £128,000 in fees has been paid to it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter relating to

the security of the House, for which the Leader of the House has said that you have some responsibilities. It relates to the instructions that were given last weekend to some Members of the House of Commons during a particularly difficult period. I raise the matter as a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
At the weekend we read in the newspaper that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had given a pass to a Miss Pamella Bordes. I shall clarify the position. The hon. Member for Dover never did allocate a pass to that young lady. I have checked it in the records. The pass was allocated by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). When he was informed that the pass was being allocated to Miss Bordes, his secretary wrote to the Clerk to the Members' Interests Select Committee pointing our that that person was not in the employ of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West. In other words, she was not employed by him, yet she had applied in his name for a pass.
The Clerk to the Select Committee then wrote to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West and told him that, if Miss Bordes did not work for him, he could write to the Serjeant at Arms and give an instruction that the pass be not allocated. That letter was not sent, and the pass is currently in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West.
Passes cannot be handed around the Commons like confetti. We are dealing with matters of security in the House of Commons. Will you carry out a full inquiry into the affair to establish on what basis that pass has been allocated?

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to comment on individual cases. Matters relating to passes to hon. Members should be raised in the first instance with the Services Committee.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 6570/88 on single member private limited companies be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 1 May)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 23rd March, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th April and at its rising on Friday 28th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Frank Dobson: By tradition, the debate on the Easter Adjournment—

Mr. John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is extremely unusual, but I wonder whether it is in order for the debate to be opened by an Opposition Front Bench spokesman. I thought that it was supposed to be a Back-Bench occasion.

Mr. Speaker: It is unusual, but it is in order.

Mr. Dobson: By tradition, the debate—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) would keep quiet, I could get on more quickly.
By tradition, the debate on the Easter Adjournment allows hon. Members—all hon. Members—to raise issues which we believe should be dealt with before the Easter recess, and I propose to do just that. I wish to refer to the Government's treatment of two very different groups of senior citizens. One group is badly off, and the other group is well off. I need hardly add that the Government propose to ignore the badly-off group and to make the well-off group even better off. The first of the two groups are war widows whose husbands' service in the forces ended before 1973. We understand that they are to get nothing from tomorrow's Budget. The other group are well-off pensioners who, we understand, are to get tax concessions in tomorrow's Budget to subsidise their private health insurance premiums.
Let us consider first the plight of the pre-1973 war widows. Most of them lost their husbands in the second world war or as a consequence of injuries received in that war. They have been shabbily treated by successive Governments. Many had a particularly hard time trying to bring up their children and are quite worn out with the effort of trying to scrape a living.
From 1 April 1973, changes in the armed forces pension scheme made much more generous provisions for widows of members of the forces, but that scheme did not include widows whose husbands were killed in action or whose service in the forces ended before that date. Today, no fewer than 57,000 war widows are not covered by the 1973 scheme. They still look to this House to redress their outstanding grievances. In particular, they seek parity of treatment with widows who are provided for under the 1973 scheme.
The Government have estimated that it would cost about £200 million to pay the pre-1973 widows the same as the post-1973 widows. But the British Legion and the British war widows are not even asking for all that extra sum to be found immediately. They point out that the widows are growing older all the time and more and more of them are dying. They calculate that the Government are saving up to £20 million per year on pensions which they no longer have to pay out, so they have asked that the money saved on pensions no longer paid out to widows who have died should be shared out between the survivors. That would give an extra £6 or £7 per week to each pre-1973 widow.
Another more generous alternative has also been suggested. It, too, would not cost the full £200 million. Under the 1973 scheme, a widow whose husband dies of causes attributable to his service gets £25 per week more than one whose husband dies of natural causes. So the Government have a ready-made way to calculate how to pay pre-1973 widows equal compensation for the death of their husbands on active service or from causes attributable to that service. They could give them that extra £25 per week each. It is estimated that to pay the additional £25 per week to all pre-1973 war widows would cost the Ministry of Defence about £70 million—not a great deal in these days of multi-billion pound Budget surpluses. The war widows expect some action to be taken.

Mr. Graham Allen: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. Is he aware of the correspondence of 5 January 1983 from the Prime Minister's office? Before he concludes his remarks, will he make sure that that correspondence is quoted?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is obviously closely following my logic. I was about to mention that very point.
The war widows were encouraged in their expectation that some action would be taken by the Prime Minister when she was Leader of the Opposition. On 13 October 1975, a letter sent on her behalf from her office stated:
Specifically relating to war widows, we promised in our October 1974 Manifesto that we would remove the distinction concerning whether or not the husband had been in service before or after 31st March 1973.
In fact, the Tory election manifesto of October 1974 had promised no such thing, but that mistake was never corrected and, in my view, the letter committed the right hon. Lady to removing the distinction between the two categories of widows.
In case any Conservative Members wish to cavil about basing the Prime Minister's commitment on that letter, a further letter was sent on 5 January 1978—not 1983 as some hon. Members believe—from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, which made a clear promise to the pre-1973 war widows. It reads:
However, I quite accept that the present situation is unsatisfactory and Mrs. Thatcher has agreed that it is now our wish to establish as rapidly as economic circumstances permit, a scheme whereby the widows of all servicemen killed in action (or dying from causes attributable to active service) would receive a pension similar to that now awarded to widows of servicemen currently in the Armed Forces".
Clearly the time has come for the Prime Minister to honour her promise. She cannot argue that economic circumstances do not permit the Government to find the money because she constantly boasts how prosperous the country is these days.
We have been told that tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to use some of his Budget surplus to pay off the national debt. Surely he should first pay off our national debt to the war widows. There is no group to whom our nation owes a greater debt. But for the sacrifices of their menfolk and their comrades in arms, we should have lost all the freedoms that we now enjoy. I am sure that most people believe that the Chancellor should pay that debt of honour to the war widows before he starts paying off the national debt.
There is, of course, another priority group of older people whom the Prime Minister has insisted must be helped before the war widows. The Prime Minister has forced the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health


to propose that people over 60 who buy private health insurance should have income tax relief. Like most of the changes proposed by the present Chancellor, that concession would benefit almost exclusively the well-off. Figures from the general household survey show that only 4 per cent. of people over 65 years old have any form of private medical insurance cover. However, 27 per cent. of retired professional people and 12 per cent. of retired employers and managers have such cover. At the other end of the scale, only 1 per cent. of skilled and semi-skilled pensioners are covered by private medical insurance and, if the official statistics are to be believed, no unskilled manual worker pensioners at all are covered by any private medical insurance scheme.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Was my hon. Friend also about to point out that people who have such cover find it astonishingly inadequate as they get older because schemes which have taken their money for 40 years refuse to cover them when they get to a certain age and for certain clear and easily defined groups of illnesses?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, to which I was about to come.
As the figures show, only well-off pensioners have the private medical insurance cover to trigger off the tax concession. It is no use the Government arguing that the concession will mean that poorer people, who currently have private medical cover at work, will be able to carry on with such cover when they retire because of the tax concessions. The fact is that in the next youngest age group—the 45 to 64-year-olds—only 3 per cent. of skilled manual workers, 2 per cent. of semi-skilled and 1 per cent. of unskilled manual workers have private medical insurance cover to carry over.
The proposed tax relief is estimated to cost more than £200 million and it is designed to put money into the pockets and handbags of the better off. It will also add in its small way to the north-south divide and to the overheating of the economy in the south-east. Although the national average of people covered by private medical insurance at the time of the last national household survey was 8 per cent., that national average masked enormous regional variations, ranging from just 3 per cent. of the population covered in the north, 4 per cent. in Wales and 5 per cent. in Scotland and Yorkshire to 10 per cent. in what the statisticians call the outer south-east, 12 per cent. in Greater London and no fewer than 17 per cent. in the outer metropolitan ring around London. It is therefore the prosperous south-east that will predominantly benefit from the tax concession.
During the general election the Prime Minister justified her use of private medical treatment on the grounds that she was spending her own money in her own way. Now, as a pensioner, she is demanding a subsidy from other taxpayers to go with it. In some cases that subsidy will exceed the average sum spent by the National Health Service on hospital services for each pensioner. Therefore, there will be no saving to the National Health Service even if those privately insured pensioners were to obtain all their medical treatment privately. However, they will not.
More than half of the people of all ages who have private medical insurance obtain in-patient hospital treatment from the NHS when they fall ill rather than from

some of the dodgy private hospitals on offer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, when it comes to the pensioners, the private health insurers specifically exclude most of the pre-existing medical and chronic conditions from which pensioners suffer—such as arthritis, senile dementia or loss of mobility—and 60 per cent. of people aged between 65 and 74 have such a long-standing illness. That figure rises to nearly 70 per cent. for people aged 75 or over.
The tax relief will reduce the funding available to the NHS while doing little or nothing to relieve the demands that the beneficiaries will make upon the NHS. Moreover, we understand that the tax relief will be available not just to the old people themselves but to relatives, such as sons or daughters, who pay more tax but wish to contribute to private medical cover for their parents. Under this Government, the motto is not so much "Honour thy father and thy mother" as "Turn thy father and thy mother into a tax break".
If the Government want to give priority in the Budget to the health needs of the elderly, the answer is not to give tax relief on medical insurance premiums for the well off. The priority should be to provide funds to cut NHS waiting lists for all elderly patients, to increase investment in district nursing, health visiting, chiropody and physiotherapy and to devote more attention to chronic illnesses.
On its own admission, the private sector offers no help in the area of chronic sickness. The latest Private Patients Plan brochure targeted on the elderly specifies what treatment is covered. It defines treatment as
A surgical or medical procedure, the purpose of which is to cure a Medical Condition and not to alleviate long term illness".
If anyone has a long-term illness, there is no point in looking to the private sector for help. Not to be outdone by PPP, a BUPA representative recently said that chronic illness was
not a suitable subject for insurance. You've got to find another way of tackling it".
Only the public purse will find the money to tackle that problem for all our pensioners. Tomorrow, however, the public purse is to be used not to help all pensioners, but to single out for special treatment an already privileged group.
That brings me back to the other group of pensioners whom I mentioned earlier—the war widows. After the second world war in which most of their husbands served, this country established a National Health Service on the basis that the best health services should be available to all and that money should no longer be the passport to better or quicker treatment. The Government have no intention of finding the £200 million required to do justice to the war widows. Worse still, adding insult to injury, they propose to spend at least that amount to help an already privileged group of pensioners to receive quicker treatment than the war widows who cannot afford private health care.
Finally, a Private Patients Plan advertisement addressed to pensioners reads:
Today the dice seem loaded against older people when they need hospital treatment … private medical insurance is not generally available to them and the alternative … the National Health Service … already has around 800,000 people on its waiting list. And more than half these people are over the age of 55.
This could mean six months or more waiting for an operation. Don't risk it … apply for membership
of PPP.


Like most people you will probably be quite willing to be treated under the NHS but because of the heavy demand on its services this may not be possible unless you wait months … even years in some cases.
With Retirement Health Plan you can get the hospital treatment you need … when you need it. Here's how it works!
That is indeed how it works in Thatcher's Britain—no £200 million to redeem our debt to war widows, but £200 million to help the healthier, wealthier pensioners to jump the queue for hospital treatment in ront of those widows.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I wish to postpone the Adjournment of this House for the Easter and May recesses until the Central Electricity Generating Board gives a categorical undertaking not to import any more Russian coal now or in the future.
Last week's disclosure that 25,000 tonnes of coal had recently been imported to two power stations in Nottinghamshire shows, I believe, a commercial misjudgment and an insult to the miners there, whom, lest we forget, were the very people who kept up the supply of coal to the CEGB during the miners' dispute in 1984–85.
The reason given by the monopoly industry for the importation of that coal was that it was for a test burn, which sounds dubious when we consider that the stations in question, Staythorpe near Newark and High Marnham, are two of the oldest in the Trent valley. I believe that the purpose of the exercise was to see whether the CEGB could mount an importation of Russian coal without it being discovered.
That Russian coal was mined at Donets, south of Moscow, carted a thousand miles across Russia to a Baltic port, and shipped in two Russian ships to the Humber ports. It was then transported through the country lanes by 40-tonne juggernauts to the power stations at a cost of approximately £40 per tonne.
If that coal was cheaper than British coal, it could be argued that it was a good buy. However, the CEGB could have bought the same consignment from Nottinghamshire collieries situated seven miles from the respective power stations at a marginal cost of £30 per tonne.
During the past month in Nottinghamshire 250,000 tonnes of coal has been stocked at a cost of £4 per tonne. The House will appreciate the stupidity of the board's actions—25,000 tonnes of coal at an extra cost of £10 per tonne is equivalent to £250,000, a cost which, once again, the poor consumer will have to foot. A small price, one might say, to insult the people of Nottinghamshire. Nevertheless, this folly has serious implications for the future of British Coal.
British Coal cannot mothball deep mines and a sudden surge of imports would lead to yet another round of colliery closures—collieries which could be needed in the mid-1990s, and which could be made viable.
The CEGB may find it amusing to play the international coal market for short-term gain but to force the closure of Nottinghamshire pits and to reduce the home supply leaves the British consumer at the mercy of the international coal barons. Do we really want the lights in this Chamber to be dependent on the vagaries of such overseas supplies? This game of poker which the CEGB is playing with British Coal over price and future supplies has already had its effect in Nottinghamshire. Exactly one month ago today British Coal announced 2,000 job losses and one colliery closure. That, after productivity has risen

by 75 per cent., a record unmatched by any other industry in the United Kingdom, and with coal prices to the power stations down 25 per cent. in real terms during the past three years.
What more do the people from the CEGB want from the Nottinghamshire miners—blood? They certainly had plenty of that in the past. When the miners were going through the picket lines and were being called scabs they considered it a compliment, but the CEGB has now stuck its knife straight between their shoulderblades.
What British Coal can offer the CEGB, which no other coal supplier will contemplate, is long-term contracts at known prices. Security of supply gives stability to consumers. Gambling with this country's future energy needs, endangering this country's prosperity and inflicting an insult beyond measure on the Nottinghamshire miners is for empty heads. The empty heads at the CEGB who have caused that must go. I sincerely hope the chairman of the CEGB, Lord Marshall, will make amends and offer an apology to the Nottinghamshire miners.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I want to raise another matter about a local colliery, this time in Derbyshire—Arkwright colliery which was closed in early 1988 After making profits for many years British Coal finally put the lid on, just as it is putting the lid on the Nottinghamshire pits now, despite the fact that they were used as doormats during the strike.
On November 9 1988 there was an escape of methane gas and almost all the tiny village of Arkwright was affected—56 houses were emptied, as a result of which the local authorities had to be called in to deal with the matter. In 1988 the Coal Board came along and filled the drift with concrete where it had to apply the closure and left it. That is typical of British Coal and that has been its usual attitude over pit closures.
The Tupton seam of the Arkwright colliery drift mine had been subject to methane gas problems for some considerable time, so much so that one of the miners at Arkwright colliery, who is listening to this debate, raised the matter with the local authority and said that British Coal should be warned, having sealed off the drift, that there might he a chance of methane escaping into the nearby village, a quarter of a mile away.
British Coal ignored the letter from the local north-east Derbyshire district council and said that everything had been effectively sealed and told the council not to worry because everything was all right.
British Coal replied to the council on 19 September, but on 9 November between 40 and 50 families escaped with their lives. It could have been a holocaust, a mass funeral. Somebody, quite fortuitously, happened to notice that gas leak. East Midlands Gas was called in and it found methane.
The following day I raised this matter in parliament arid I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy demanding a public inquiry on that and certain other matters. Those who have heard me raise this issue before, know that I called for a public inquiry because British Coal has, until now, refused to accept total liability for the gas leak. Due to British Coal's lack of control after Arkwright colliery was closed, methane gas escaped. Scores of families could have been gassed or could have been the victims of an almighty explosion.
The consequences of the leak have been as follows: many families have lost large sums of money for household items—the contents of freezers were destroyed; many people had to take time off work during the evacuation—they were evacuated for about a fortnight in all; one person lost his job because he was evacuated with his family and his employer refused to set him back on; property values have slumped by thousands of pounds. The local authority had to make payments to remove families for that fortnight and payments had to be made to relatives and friends for boarding those families. Families had to be split up and people are still suffering from nerves and other problems arising out of that gas escape.
When I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy I expected some action, but I did not get it. The Secretary of State for Energy, in typical liaison with British Coal, decided to pass the buck. He passed it to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who passed it to one of his juniors and down the line it went until I got a reply on 31 January. There was to be no inquiry. The Government said that British Coal had dealt with the gas hazard and they would accept responsibility only on the basis of a good neighbour policy, granting £100 per household. That poses an interesting question. The coal mine existed for many years and was liable to escapes of methane gas—all the miners testified to that. The pit was closed and gas then escaped. Whose gas was it?
East Midlands Gas analysed the gas and said that it did not belong to it, even though it supplied the gas to tenants. The gas was sent to Harwell to be analysed, to discover whether it was landfill gas, but the Harwell institute found that it was not. Most villagers believed that it was coming through cracks caused by subsidence due to the pit. Most people realised that the gas was pushed up through the cracks as a result of rising water levels and 40 families in the village were lucky to escape.
British Coal officials say that they are not sure that it is their gas. That seems incredible, given that the pit is only a few hundred yards away from the village. It is more incredible that British Coal was willing to bore into the mine to get rid of the methane gas. It drilled down about 60 ft and built a chimney. British Coal has already spent an estimated £1·5 million and has managed to bring down the methane levels, yet its officials still say—having spent all that money and carried out all that work—that the gas leak is not their responsibility or liability. British Coal has refused to deal with the solicitors whom the villagers have collectively employed to fight their case.
This is a green issue which involves the environment—a chimney has been pouring out methane gas. Government Members talk about the environment every time they open their gills, and here is a little village with 40 families involved in an incident—many of them are down here today. They cannot obtain proper recompense from British Coal or justice from the Government because the various Secretaries of State are passing letters between them. A junior Employment Minister went up to the coal mine last week and, supposedly, confided to some officials that British Coal should accept liability. I suppose he will now deny that. In letters to me, both Departments involved say that British Coal is not totally responsible.
This is a strange affair, which is all about money. British Coal has made a mountain of money out of Arkwright

colliery, from the ribs of the miners and their families, but now, when those people are suffering, it refuses to pay them back. The families are subjected to having little monitors installed in their houses and many of them live in fear. Even worse, British Coal refuses to allow Arkwright colliery's records to be given to the solicitors representing those families. They are being treated with arrogance and contempt. They have been subjected to a horror story; they have been evacuated from their houses for 14 days and they still live in fear. British Coal is acting as it did during most of the miners' strike, and refusing to allow the families' solicitors to see records pertaining to the pit and the period when the gas escaped.

Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that, under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, the Secretary of State has the power to issue a directive to British Coal to release the statistics relating to such a matter. Therefore, the responsibility rests with the Government, not solely with British Coal.

Mr. Skinner: That is one of the reasons why I am raising the issue today. The Government have a responsibility to play fair with these people. The Secretary of State for Energy and the Government have the power to settle this issue and I assure them that the villagers are prepared to take the matter to court. However, I do not want them to spend their money. I do not see why they should have to employ solicitors and spend money in order to obtain the relevant records, a fair deal, a public inquiry and compensation. Why should they not receive those now? The Prime Minister found £500 million to try to save Tory seats in Kent and another £500 million at the press conference at which she gave the wrong figures. We are talking about a smaller amount which is needed in a Labour-held seat.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), of course, the Government could tell British Coal, through the Secretary of State for Energy, to play fair. Why do they continue this agony? Why do they not play the game? The Government should demand that the records are released, without the villagers having to go to court. Instead of passing the buck between Departments, Ministers should answer the questions and guarantee compensation.
This disturbing case could, as I said, have resulted in mass funerals. The villagers were lucky and that is why they have come to London today demanding the treatment that would have been given if the incident had occurred in Downing street. If even a minuscule amount—compared to that in Arkwright—had escaped in Downing street, at Chatsworth, the property of the Duke of Devonshire, or anywhere within the realms of the establishment, there would have been an inquiry. However, it happened near a pit yard where people produced the wealth of Britain for all those years; the wealth creators have been ignored. The people in the belly of the establishment always get away with it. It is high time that the Government told British Coal to get on with its job and issue the directive referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
We are fed up with crocodile tears and British Coal talking about acting as a good neighbour and giving £100 and a little bit on the side. The villagers have come here today to call upon British Coal to shoulder its responsibility and upon the Government to have a fresh


look at what has happened and to call on the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a public inquiry into the affair. The villagers are calling on the Government to release the Arkwright colliery's records so that their solicitors can deal with the matter. They are fed up with all the talk about the environment and now want action.
The matter will not go away. These people have travelled 150 miles to London today and they will not disband as soon as they return to Arkwright. They will fight all the way. However, a great deal of money—such as court costs—could be saved if some fairness and justice were shown in this matter.

Mr. William Powell: It is entirely right that we should seek to adjourn in order to celebrate the divine resurrection. I wish to spend a few moments reflecting on a human resurrection that has occurred in the last 10 years. It is right to pay tribute to the many thousands of people responsible for the remarkable recovery that has occurred in the former steel town of Corby—the central town in my constituency.
The House will be aware that, exactly 10 years ago, it adjourned after the Government had lost a vote of no confidence, and with a general election in prospect. On 3 March, 1979, the British Steel Corporation notified the steel unions represented in the Corby steel works that it proposed to stop steel production in Corby in a year's time. There was nothing surprising about that announcement because it was preceded by months of speculation in the press and rumours of Cabinet discussions. I have no idea whether they were true.
It was not merely a matter of speculation because it was underlined in the steel White Paper of 1973, introduced in the dying months of the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The White Paper said that steel production was likely to cease in Corby by the end of the decade—the 1970s—for two extremely good reasons. First, steel production started in Corby because of the local iron ore that was mined by opencast mining. That high-quality iron ore was beginning to run out and it was obvious that there would be insufficient local iron ore beyond the end of the decade to be able to sustain the steel making process, which has been carried on for about 40 years.
The decision to concentrate steel production in the five great plants meant that all the smaller steelworks such as Corby, Consett, Ebbw Vale and Shotton, were likely to find themselves under considerable threat as a result of the concentration at Llanwern, Port Talbot and so on. There was nothing surprising, therefore, about the decision announced in March 1979, but it was regrettable that between 1974 and 1979 so little was done to prepare for the closure. I use those dates deliberately. The House will recall that the steel White Paper that made the forecast to which I have referred came out in the December 1973. At that time, 73 per cent. of people in a town of 50,000 owed their livelihoods to the steelworks. So clearly a body blow of immense proportions was dealt to the principal town of what is now my constituency but was then the constituency of Kettering.
There is no question but that a resurrection of staggering dimensions has since occurred. The effect of closure in Corby was an unemployment total of 7,000; it has now fallen to 1,800. I am reasonably confident about

forecasting that by the end of this calendar year it will have fallen below 1,000. I can also predict with confidence that there will be full employment in Corby by the end of 1990—that was not predicted back in 1979–80.
All this has come about as a result of the activities of many human beings. I want to say some words of praise about a wide variety of people—not all of them Conservatives—who have played a considerable part in bringing about this remarkable transformation.
First, I single out the Government's principal agency to have been involved—the Commission on the New Towns. It has worked extremely hard and effectively to construct factory units, to encourage tenants to occupy them and to sell land in its ownership to companies moving in. It has also promoted Corby extremely effectively as a desirable place for inward investment, and has done so with confidence in the future. The commission has turned in a remarkable performance and the Department of the Environment has provided a good many services, too. The Commission on the New Towns is subject to that Department, which has made available derelict land grants on an extensive scale.
Much of the land in Corby consisted of old opencast iron ore workings in a most unsatisfactory condition. It would have been too much to expect private investors to have had the confidence to spend huge sums on restoring this land to a condition in which they could begin the construction of new factory units. The public sector has an important role to play in the sort of activities that have taken place in Corby, not least by providing derelict land grants. In the case of Corby, these grants have been generous, continuous and effective—a magnificent example of public sector pump-priming, which has enabled private sector industry to take advantage of what the state, the nation and the taxpayer have provided.
One of the most important lessons to be drawn from Corby's experience is the paramount importance of derelict land grants. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is present in the Chamber; he plays a considerable part in drawing this fact to the attention of Ministers. It is important that everyone should understand that derelict land grants are essential if old industrial areas are to be restored and the sort of developments of the past decade in Corby are to take place.
I want to pay tribute to Tresham college in Kettering and Corby. That college of education has done an enormous amount of work with incoming private industry to train the work force in the requisite skills. It is another example of public sector pump-priming which can generate redevelopment and secure and promote a town's future. The work done by the college has been outstanding, and I am proud to represent the constituency in which it has played a pioneering role in the transition from past to future. All the more pity, therefore, that none of the activities I have mentioned were attended to in the mid-1970s—a great deal of suffering would have been avoided if they had been.
I pay tribute to the local authorities that have been working in this area. I said earlier that not only Conservatives had been involved in the regeneration. I pay tribute to Labour councillors and Labour authorities who have done their bit—it has been a considerable bit—to encourage companies to come in and to boost the reputation of the area that they represent. I am glad to report that we have had no loony Leftists ruining the


reputation of the area for the outside world—far from it. The local authority and district council immediately set about, not holding demonstrations, but going to the seat of power, even though by May 1979 it was occupied by Conservatives. The authorities tried to work with the Conservative Government for the good of their area.
Other Labour authorities have done exactly the same, and I pay tribute to them. The only way out of industrial catastrophes such as my constituency faced is through partnership between all people of goodwill, regardless of their political persuasion. That is what has happened. During the six years or so that I have been a Member of Parliament I have been pleased to be able to work just as effectively with people who are convinced and committed supporters of the Labour party as with convinced and committed supporters of the Conservative party. Such parterships have been entered upon during the past decade. It is important that they should be made in the future in areas that still face recovery from industrial disaster.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) mentioned the closure in Kirkby, which was announced over the weekend. Although Kirkby faces disaster and huge unemployment I hope that it will realise that there is real advantage in trying to work with, rather than trying to denigrate and discredit, people who may not be of the same political persuasion. Partnership is essential.
I also pay tribute to the work done by the district council and the county council—the latter has been Conservative for the past four years, was Labour for the four years before that, and Conservative before that. Conservative or Labour, the council has done its bit to build up communications, to secure funds from the EEC and the Government and to ensure that the investment in infrastructure, which is so necessary to improving communications, could take place.
In the heat of debate in this Chamber we often hear partisan exchanges which do considerable discredit to the people on the wrong side of them, so it is right that these things should be said from time to time and that people should have the chance to reflect on them.
Over 400 companies have come to Corby in the last 10 years, some of them small, some of them household names. There have been setbacks as well as triumphs on the way. There are many lessons to be learned and applied to areas which have experienced industrial devastation post 1979.
I want to close by paying tribute to two groups of people who have each, in their way, played a unique part. The first of those groups are people, on the whole, private business men, who have invested their own money in the town. Most of the investment which has occurred has not come from the Department of Trade and Industry, the EEC or any other public purse; it has come from the sources of private industry itself. Huge investment has taken place on an immense scale.
There is absolutely no question at all that the whole range of Government policies has enabled this to happen, and it is too easy to say that the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, local authorities or other public institutions have done everything. They have done an enormous amount to prime the pump, but they have led a huge cascade of investment,

running into hundreds of millions of pounds of people's own money, and these people deserve public tribute as well. Above all else, as we talk about policies and politics in this country, we should never forget that we are actually talking about people. People are the only resource, the only source which gives us any vehicle or authority for what we do here.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the people of Corby themselves. Every family was affected by what happened 10 years ago and many of them have had to carry the strain in circumstances of the utmost difficulty and poverty. Now prosperity is returning, and I confidently predict that the prosperity will grow and benefit every single family living in the town. I pay tribute to all those people who have taken the strain in circumstances beyond their control, who may well have felt let down by all sorts of things which happened in the past, for which it would not be appropriate to lay too much blame here this evening, when I do not want to distribute blame but to pay tribute. Thousands and thousands of families have taken the strain, have come through it, and they deserve the admiration and approbation of this House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I believe that this very precious time for Back Benchers should be used to explain in very simple terms why the House should not adjourn before it has addressed itself to certain abuses, and it is important that we should guard the time for that purpose. I shall not detain the House long, but the issue that concerns me is very real.
Over a number of months now, the House has discussed the question of BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which has infected a great many cattle, and there have been discussions on the various ways of dealing with it. I was concerned to discover that infected carcases were being buried in a landfill site in the middle of my constituency, on the Cheshire plain, alongside two specific water sources from which in due course drinking water is taken. When I asked the Ministry of Agriculture whether the animals were being incinerated or buried, it reported that 48 carcases had been disposed of in this way.
Having studied the relevant reports, I appreciate that there are alternative means of disposal, and that the heads had been removed from the infected cattle and taken elsewhere for testing. Nevertheless, I am still greatly concerned at the fact that a landfill tip is being used for such purposes. The site is quite close to housing and while I do not wish to overplay the matter I believe there is some doubt as to whether lime is being used before disposing of the carcases, as is essential when dealing with the destruction of infected beasts.
Having read the Ministrys own reports, there is some suggestion that infected animals may carry the virus infection in the spleen as well as the brain. If that is so, I would want to be assured by the relevant Ministers that in disposing of infected carcases in a landfill site they are not implanting a virus which could have an effect over the next 10 or 20 years. It is all very well talking about caring for the environment, but caring for the environment means taking very careful action where there could be a possible risk to anyone, either now or in the distance future.
I therefore feel that the Minister of Agriculture should be prepared to set up an inquiry into the means of


disposing of infected cattle. I know that there are very few incinerators available to destroy such carcases easily, and I understand that some veterinary surgeons doubt whether incineration is necessarily the best means, but if there is any doubt about the way in which infected carcases are being treated I am extremely concerned that they should not be left in the earth.
I am anxious not to cause panic or concern among my constituents who live around the landfill site, but I hope that the Government will make a clear, definitive statement about what is happening there and how the carcases are treated. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reply in some detail to the very genuine fears of my constituents.
If BSE is a growing problem, a number of questions need to be answered. Is incineration the best method of disposal? If so, what plans do the Government have for building incinerators capable of carrying the numbers of carcases which will undoubtedly need to be disposed of in the near future? If incineration is the only method, presumably the landfill site will no longer be used. If, on the other hand, it is possible to dispose of infected carcases safely in that way, why are only the heads being removed when the Ministry's own information seems to suggest that other parts of the carcases may still carry the infection?
Finally, veterinary health is absolutely vital because of its effect on the food chain. We know from the treatment of viruses in human beings that it is easy to store up difficulties for future generations by misuse of landfill sites, which could be a potential time bomb. I hope that is not the case.
I hope that the Ministry will not be prepared to allow infected carcases to be quietly disposed of, as they have been so far, on a site which is of great concern to my constituents. I hope that Ministers will consider the methods of disposal and reassure everyone concerned in my constituency either that this is the only safe way of dealing with the problem, or that they will come forward very urgently with alternative plans.
The very fact that the disposal of these carcases has been taking place in what amounted almost to secrecy is bound to concern us all. I do not wish to start a panic or to over-dramatise the situation, but if the House adjourns without the serious concern of my constituents being set to rest, I personally shall be exceedingly alarmed because I shall begin to believe that there really is something to hide.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not consider the length of the contributions today as a measure of the importance of the subjects which have been raised. Obviously the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised a subject which will be of concern to all hon. Members. I suspect that the matter that I want to raise will also concern hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Leader of the House should be aware that 90 of my colleagues feel as strongly as I do about the problem of land use. Hon. Members have raised the issue of land use eating into green fields on many occasions over the past few months. Many hon. Members

have referred to the need to debate the future of the development plans published in a White Paper in January. Those plans should be discussed in this House.
Extra weight was given to the need to discuss the proposals in that White Paper by a statement made by Plymouth city council on Friday. The council believes that it has run out of land and intends to ask the Boundary Commission for permission to eat into 2,000 acres of land in my constituency for building purposes.
Problems with land use have often been discussed in this House. However, the major problem of land use has been accelerated by the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that nearly 500,000 new houses need to be built on 53,700 acres in the south of this country.
We are all aware of the need to provide more homes. However, there is increasing concern that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no regard, although he professes otherwise, for preserving the green fields and the environment of the south and south-west. Unless we have an opportunity to debate the future of the development plans and the Government can hear the strength of feeling on the Conservative as well as on the Opposition Benches, they will be doing an injustice to the House and to the country.
There are 85,000 acres of public vacant land. By vancant I mean dormant, under-utilised or unused. That land is on the register of public land which was set up in 1981 by the then Secretary of State for the Environment to indentify waste land or land that was surplus to requirement, but in public ownership. Over the past eight years, an enormous amount of that land has been sold. Many of us on the Conservative Benches were delighted that the land had been sold and used. However, as fast as land comes off the register, more land goes on. So long as we have the present planning system, land will continue to become vacant, dormant and under-utilised in public ownership and will continue to be placed on the register. I believe that the land register will continue for another 50 years or more as public vacant land is sold and new public land becomes available.
There is public waste land in most cities. There is certainly much public vacant land in Plymouth. It belongs not just to the local authority, health authorities and education authorities, but to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Property Services Agency. It is no good the Government saying that they are concerned to preserve the environment and to conserve the beautiful parts of Britain if they continue to allow public vacant land to dominate the scene while they allow the green fields to be eaten up before public vacant land is used.
Instead of debating whether we should continue to use green fields in preference to public vacant land, we should debate the merits of the future of the development plans. Can we discuss whether we want to get rid of the county structure plans in the way that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing? Do we want city councils like that in Plymouth or in other major conurbations to commandeer thousands of acres of green fields and destroying the environment because they say that they have run out of land? The Government are not pushing hard enough for public vacant land to be released and used. The land register has indentified the


public waste land and vacant land, but the Government have not insisted that they and other public organisations divest themselves of that land.
I was grateful for the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) about my specialisation in this subject. Some hon. Members have read the splendid publication "Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes" which I wrote in conjunction with others last year. That document identifies the scope and extent of public vacant land and argues how it should be used before the Secretary of State for the Environment eats into green field sites in the south and south-east.
There is no point in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment insisting on more housing being built if public money is not available for the necessary infrastructure to go with it. Ivybridge in my constituency is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. It has inadequate schooling and the police claim that they cannot provide the police presence that they would like because the town continues to expand and there is insufficient public investment. In that town there is insufficient health care, inadequate housing facilities and leisure and recreation services. Similarly, the road network is inadequate.
It is pointless to continue to build on public vacant land or on green field sites unless there is sufficient infrastructure. Problems with inadequate infrastructure can be found in Ivybridge and elsewhere in my constituency. The future of the development plans is very important and we must debate that subject before the House adjourns for the Easter recess.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I want to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the alarming growth in pollution of the stretches of the Rivers Don and Rother which frame my constituency. I look to the Secretary of State for the Environment for an urgent response.
I spoke about these problems during the Second Reading of the Water Bill. I informed the House that, since 1980, I have engaged the Department of the Environment in correspondence about capital allocations and external financing limits for Yorkshire Water in the light of what I feared then were growing problems of the water supply and pollution. The then Minister of State described my inquiries as unnecessarily gloomy and claimed that the overall trend in river quality was improving.
The expectation then was that Yorkshire rivers would become cleaner during the 1980s. Instead, river quality has worsened throughout the decade. The Yorkshire water authority chairman has admitted to me in correspondence that hundreds of kilometres of south Yorkshire river stretches are still polluted, and the Prime Minister confirmed as much in her reply to me last Thursday. Furthermore, there are growing doubts in south Yorkshire about the quality of domestic water, whether from the Pennines or from the River Derwent. A fear about aluminium from purification processes is associated with the Pennines, and worries about nitrates from agricultural pollution are connected with the River Derwent.
The Government have insisted that when the Water Bill is enacted it will address the problems of water supply and

river pollution. Whether the Bill will eventually provide for the appropriate investment and regulatory framework is not my concern today. My continuing worry is that the scale of the problem in south Yorkshire is so huge and probably still deteriorating that the situation cannot await the potential benefits, as the Government see them, of the Water Bill.
Yorkshire Water produced figures last week which show that pollution incidents in the region's rivers have increased more than three fold in the past decade and that complaints about the quality of drinking water in south Yorkshire have also risen steadily over the past two years. Hundreds of Sheffield-area folk have protested recently about dirty water supplies.
Local council officials are considering whether disgruntled consumers may have a case against Yorkshire Water under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. I understand that Yorkshire water authority, in common with others, is reconsidering its policy on the use of aluminium in purification processes, following research studies suggesting a possible link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease.
There is also growing concern in south Yorkshire about the presence of nitrates in drinking water. One quarter of south Yorkshire's drinking water comes from the River Derwent, which is fed by streams and rivulets running through agricultural land. Even if no more fertilisers are used around York, it is feared that water nitrate levels in south Yorkshire will continue to rise. It takes between five and 40 years for the chemical to seep through. There is the fear that the River Derwent will exceed the Community's limit for nitrates in drinking water by the end of the century.
During last winter, I conveyed those fears to the Department of the Environment. In a letter dated 9 January, the Minister for Water and Planning claimed that the revised capital allocation would enable Yorkshire Water to implement its programmes. The Minister, looking to the future, thought that the authority would benefit in particular from the £1 billion programme planned to bring most sewage works up to the necessary standard by 1992.
My purpose in speaking today is to argue that the situation in Yorkshire continues to deteriorate and that there is a need for greater remedial action in advance of the implementation of the Water Bill. My authority for making those submissions is to be found in the current finding of the Yorkshire Post poisoned rivers campaign, in the investigation by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team, and consumer perception. According to a survey commissioned by Yorkshire Water published only last week, more people are worried about the state of rivers in Yorkshire and Humberside than ever previously recorded. According to the findings of the Sunday Times' "Insight" team, Britain's rivers are being polluted at a faster rate than at any time since records began. Industry must bear the brunt of the blame for that.
My constituency is flanked by the Rivers Rother and Don, which are particularly affected. British Coal Products, a subsidiary of British Coal, is one of the top offenders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not mind if I mention that firm, for he will know that its giant coking plant in Chesterfield has appeared to break the law 12 out of the 17 times that tests were undertaken by water authority officials. A sample of the Rother taken by the "Insight"


team downstream of the British Coal Products' plant, bordering my constituency, contained measurable concentrations of both cyanide and mercury—neither of which the company is licensed to discharge—yet that plant has never been the subject of a prosecution.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will welcome a reference to the pollution problems of his side of Sheffield city. British Tissues, in my hon. Friend's constituency, is another offender. It failed consents on 14 out of 27 occasions that its discharges were tested in the past 12 months. Recently, the company spent £2 million on improvements to clear up effluent, and believes that there will be no further problems. However, problems have been arising downstream. British Coal has been prosecuted 21 times in the past three years for pollution offences, but continues to breach the limits. Again, the biggest sufferers are the Rivers Rother and Don, and the worst stretches frame the city of Sheffield.
As the Rother approaches Sheffield, it passes through Rother valley country park, which is popular with nearly 700,000 visitors a year. What those visitors do not know is that the water in the lake must be pumped from a brook three miles away. The next stop is the huge coking plant at Orgreave. Last year, British Steel made profits of more that £400 million but spent only £85,000 on effluent treatment at that site. According to local anglers, no fish have been caught in the Rother for at least 20 years.
Yorkshire Water attempts to clean up the river, but we have seen only a catalogue of delays and broken pledges. In 1974, the water authority said that the Rother would be grade two by 1979. In 1979, Yorkshire Water put the date back to 1987. In 1987, the authority announced a revised target of 2001. The picture is almost as bleak in respect of the Don, where sewage is a greater threat than industry. I dare not use the language describing the nature of the pollution that was used by The Sunday Times yesterday. However, I can tell the House that sewage degrades more rivers than any other form of pollution.
Last year, more than 4,000 pollution incidents were caused by sewage. According to the "Insight" team, cleaning up discharges will cost far more than previously thought. One in five of Britain's sewage works is breaking the law by discharging sub-standard waste into rivers. The Yorkshire water authority is one of the worst offenders. The sewage works at Blackburn meadows, for example, on the boundary of my constituency and within Sheffield city limits, will require more than £30 million to be spent if it is to meet consent standards. At least five miles downstream of the Don disgraceful conditions are observable.
A similar situation exists in Leeds, Bradford and elsewhere in Yorkshire. Last year, Yorkshire Water admitted that about 70 sewage treatment works out of about 600 in the region failed to reach consent standards governing the content of effluent discharged into rivers. Although most of those 70 works are small, substantial investment will be needed if they are to comply. According to the "Insight" team, the total bill could exceed £1·6 billion. That is £600 million more than the figure conveyed to me by the Minister for Water and Planning in his letter of 9 January.
Yesterday's issue of The Sunday Times commented:
A spokesman for the Department of the Environment yesterday confirmed that the cost of dealing with
storm

overflows was not included
in the original figure of £1 billion. That is why I thought that it was urgent to raise the matter today, and why I look to the Leader of the House to convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment before Easter how reckless and grievously the shortfall of money is bearing on my constituency, and how important it is to make an early statement.

Mr. William Cash: I thought that it would be appropriate to deal today with an issue about which I feel strongly, and in respect of which I believe that strong feelings are held by other right hon. and hon. Members. I refer to the relationship of this country to Europe and the context in which we discuss matters which arc directly germane not only to domestic legislation but to Community obligations.
A relevant issue arose in Question Time today, in respect of the validity of the Merchant Shipping act 1988, a matter which is currently before the Court of Appeal. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not want me to go into detail, but as I pointed out in a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, only last year when the matter was being considered by the courts the Government took the view that it was perfectly right for them to introduce that legislation. The courts upheld that view on a preliminary hearing and awarded costs to the Government.
We are now in a peculiar position in which an appeal against that finding is in process, yet the court previously ruled that the Government should be awarded costs because of their success in introducing a Bill in the House, even though it was argued at the time that the legislation may be inconsistent with our treaty obligations. I introduce my arguments with that point because of its topicality, but it is merely an example of what I regard as a much graver threat.
I should declare at once that I am and always have been pro-Europe. I was a founder member of "Westminster for Europe". There are, however, trends within the Community which are diametrically opposed to the interests of this House as a legislative chamber. Having just returned from a visit to the European Community as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I can say without hesitation that creeping federalism is alive and well. I make no apology for feeling strongly that we have failed to appreciate the extent to which assumptions are made in the Community about the direction in which European legislation is going, and the extent to which the Community's powers are drawing us down a cul-de-sac within the legal ring fence of the treaty of Rome.
I am a strong supporter of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's position as expressed in the Bruges speech. That speech has been gravely under-estimated, misconstrued and misinterpreted. Nothing in it is inconsistent with the position that we could and should adopt in the House, but much of what is happening in the Community, largely in the form of actions taken by the Commission, ought to be challenged by us.
Only a short time ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he would ensure that we debated the hormone regulation before its adoption in the Council of Ministers. As happens all too frequently, the debate in question was held late at night, at midnight or thereabouts.


Nevertheless, the House filled up. The other day we had a similar debate about the heavy commercial vehicles directives, and again the House filled up. The reason why the House fills up when such matters are debated, even at a late hour, is that hon. Members are increasingly conscious of the impact of European measures, not merely on the legislation of this country as a whole but on their constituents.
Hon. Members have a responsibility which cannot be discharged by, for example, Members of the European Parliament. I do not wish to denigrate the European Parliament, but the democratic vote of this country's electorate is expressed through this Chamber to Ministers who are in turn accountable to the House. They sit in the Council of Ministers, but there is a direct relationship between the functions that they perform there and matters determined in British general elections.

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cash: I see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) shaking his head. Clearly he does not agree with my analysis, but that is how I see the position.
There is increasing evidence of the misuse of powers granted under the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. An example is the use of article 100A of the treaty, which deals generally with the internal market. The Select Committee took evidence recently from the Treasury Solicitor and although our report has not yet been published I think that it is fair to say that some of us felt misgivings about the extent and nature of the use of article 100A, and that in some instances the treaty as a whole has been stretched beyond all reasonable recognition.
As Community legislation is bound to be implemented through the House and imposed on the electorate, this is a serious matter because such an enlargement of competence on the part of the Commission and European legislators can effectively bypass the national Parliaments altogether. When the basis on which a local authority exercises its power is challenged, our courts tend to cut down the use of the legislation if the possibility that the authority is exceeding its powers is seriously in question. The European Court of Justice, on the other hand, using its interpretative methods, does exactly the opposite—it tends to enlarge the competence and powers of the Commission, with the result that an almost limitless range of options opens up for those who legislate, through the Community, for our electorates.
That tendency should be resisted because in my view it is bound to lead to more federalism than even the Community's sternest critics thought possible. I will add a rider. As a Conservative Member, I would argue that many of the provisions in the social dimension—relating, for instance, to worker participation—which I do not believe are contemplated under the treaty of Rome, are being brought in through the back door to satisfy the Socialist leanings of many Community members.
We must put our foot down and stop the acceleration of this trend. I am in favour of majority voting under the Single European Act, but I believe that we must debate European matters at an earlier stage in their progress through the House. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to tell us reasonably soon that a change in procedure may allow that. If that

happens, we shall be able—in conjunction, I hope, with other Select Committees—to consider such matters at a time when they are relevant to decision-making, and not when it is already too late in the day. At present we are faced, in effect, with a fait accompli which is causing grave concern in the House.
We should consider this matter in the context not only of our own national Parliament but of all the national Parliaments. If we believe that federalism is an increasing trend in the rest of Europe—I believe that it is rampant—it is up to us to encourage Members of those other Parliaments to take a similar stance to ours. Acquiesence to federalism, given its importance to our democracy and our constitution, could be likened to the appeasement of the 1930s. We are dealing, ultimately, with how our electorate is governed, with Cabinet government and with how we legislate in this country. We cannot allow the House to be reduced to nothing more than a regional council.
I am pro-European, but many of the democratic institutions of our friends and colleagues in Europe have relatively recent origins. The true democratic traditions of the House have enabled us to defend liberty many times during the past 75 years. The simple questioning of authority, and the ability to question those who are accountable, remains at the heart of our system. A remote, undemocratic European Parliament is the only alternative way to maintain a form of democracy in Europe. But that would lead to a single European Parliament with a single European Government—which the leaders of the European People's party have called for. That is the inevitable consequence which the House cannot accept. We can live happily with our friends and colleagues within the current system governing the European Community, but we have an economic union and not a political union. We can, we will and we must resist federalism.

Mr. Tony Benn: The point I wish to raise bears on what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just said. It would be inconceivable for the House to adjourn for Easter without recording the fact that last Friday the High Court disallowed an Act which was passed by this House and the House of Lords and received Royal Assent—the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. Fortunately "Erskine May" makes it clear that matters before the European Court are not sub judice according to the rules of the House. I am not making any comment that would breach the rules of the House, but for the first time in the history of Parliament an Act passed by both Houses and the regulations under it have been set aside.
I shall put on record what I read in The Scotsman on Saturday on my way from Aberdeen to Inverness. Under the heading "Law of Britain no longer paramount", it stated:
Law aimed at protecting the interests of the British fishing fleet was negated by an unprecedented High Court ruling in London yesterday.
It continued:
That was understood to be the first time a British court had interfered with an Act of Parliament in that way … Lord Justice Neill, sitting with Mr. Justice Hodgson said that 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable for the High Court to question the validity of an Act of Parliament.


Now, the courts had a duty to give effect to European Community law and where there was a conflict to prefer European law to national law. He said the owners of the … vessels were seeking a declaration
in respect of part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988. The same theme was taken up in the Financial Times under the headline:
Court blocks fishing law in a constitutional first
and The Guardian which stated:
Judges block fishery law".
I understand that there is an element of bipartisanship because the newspapers reported that the Government have taken the case to the Court of Appeal and the case may come up in the next day or two. Although I share some of the feelings about federalism expressed by the hon. Member for Stafford, much of what he said has long since happened. The right of the courts to override our legislation was always envisaged in the treaty of accession which was signed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I shook my head during the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford because he thinks that when people go to Europe they are accountable to the House of Commons. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a constitutional lawyer, but he may not appreciate that all Acts entered into by Ministers in the Common Market are enacted under the prerogative.

Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the European Communities Act 1972 effectively grants the European Community power by and through the authority of the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that the Single European Act did the same under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986?

Mr. Benn: I do not want to dispute with the hon. Gentleman, but he must not confuse the legislative provision with the powers of the prerogative under which all treaty-making takes place. We passed the European Communities Act 1972—I voted against it—following the signature of the treaty of accession which was never published until the then Prime Minister had signed it. The Single European Act was signed under the prerogative. I was on the Council of Ministers for four or five years and I was president of the Council of Energy Ministers during the six months of our presidency. One does not go to the Council of Ministers empowered by the House, but under the powers of the prerogative, an entirely different process.
Membership of the EEC threw us hack several hundred years in domestic law, to prerogative powers in Britain. We went back into the recesses of feudalism to draw out those prerogative powers we are now using to latch federalism on to us. The House is threatened by its own history as well as by agreements entered into by Ministers when they go to Europe.
I do not want to move away from the subject of the legal judgment, but I believe that if we were to apply our laws properly, judges who negated an Act of Parliament would be guilty of contempt, but that may have to await the appeal when the Government have completed their negotiations.
I want to make it clear to the House that we are absolutely impotent unless we repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act. It is no good talking about being a good European. We are all good Europeans; that is a matter of geography and not a matter of sentiment.

Are the arrangements under which we are governed such that we have broken the link between the electorate and the laws under which they are governed?
I am an old parliamentary hand—perhaps I have been here too long—but I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that when people vote in an election they must be entitled to know that the party for which they vote, if it has a majority, will be able to enact laws under which they will be governed. That is no longer true. Any party elected, whether it is the Conservative party or the Labour party can no longer say to the electorate, "Vote for roe and if I have a majority I shall pass that law," because if that law is contrary to Common Market law, British judges will apply Community law. The European Court of Justice is not so relevant—it is very political and would give us enough rope to hang ourselves—but British judges will tell the House of Commons that it has no right to pass that law.
When people discover that whoever they vote for they cannot change the law or the system of taxation under which they are governed, either they will go to Brussels and petition the Commissioners who are the modern kings, or they will say, "Why bother to vote? Let us take more direct action to change the law." That delicate fabric of consent on which our system of Government rests has already been torn. We do not know all the consequences. One consequence is separatism in Scotland, as some people in Scotland believe that they would be better off conducting their own negotiations. The fragmentation of the United Kingdom is an inevitable consequence of membership of the EEC.
We cannot go away for Easter without putting on record in Hansard and in the House that on Friday the supremacy of the British Parliament was negated by judges who claimed that what we did as recently as last year was illegal. Before coming back to the matter we may have to wait until the Government succeed in their appeal or make a statement to the House. These are fundamental questions which unite opinion on both sides of the. House. Whatever we want to do with our democracy, we all agree that we have to retain it in order to do anything with it.
The time has come to warn the House, and even the passionate Common Market Europeans, that we go thus far but no further. If we dig deeper into the pit, we may find that the courts would not even accept our right to repeal the European Communities Act. We would be in a constitutional crises of enormous magnitude if we were to repeal section 2 to regain the power that we have lost and the court said, "Sorry, but in effect, by usage and practice and common law, Parliament has lost the right to liberate itself."
These issues are more important than might be apparent from the fact that we are discussing the Easter Adjournment. I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking briefly on the matter. It is of a different character from others that have been raised. For all that, it may be an issue that has greater duration than some other important matters that hon. Members have raised.

6 pm

Mr. Michael Jack: I should also like to implore my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not to adjourn the House for Easter until we have had an opportunity to review progress on the reform of private sheltered accommodation for the elderly. I reported to the


House about a year ago on the establishment of a working party to draw up a code of practice to regulate the private sheltered accommodation industry. I did that because I had received letters from all over the country following articles in the Daily Telegraph about people who were suffering difficulties over service and maintenance charges, the quality of repairs, the operation of wardens and matters concerned with ground rents. They were delighted that somebody in Parliament was taking up the issues surrounding the difficulties concerned with private sheltered accommodation.
It is important to debate the issue because the amount of sheltered accommodation in the private sector is growing all the time. I estimate from my research that in 1985 some 5,000 units of sheltered accommodation were built. In 1987 the figure had risen to about 9,000. Today the industry has built well over 20,000 units in total. At selling prices of between £40,000 and £150,000 one can see that it is a major and dynamic part of the housebuilding industry. Every unit of sheltered accommodation that is built and sold usually frees one conventional house. At a time when the House has been debating housing and planning, it is important to consider the issues surrounding sheltered accommodation because it provides a new and additional source of housing which the official statistics may not yet have recognised.
The reason why a code of practice to regulate the conduct of the industry is important is because of the developing care that sheltered accommodation can provide. Today we have what might be called conventional sheltered accommodation—a simple flat built with others in a complex of high quality, with a warden in residence to look after the elderly persons should they run into trouble. The services for the unit are organised on a professional management basis by large companies, some associated with builders and some independent. In simple terms, floors are swept regularly, light bulbs are changed, gardens are tended and the property is kept in first-class order.
That simple formula is changing in a number of ways of which I think the House should be aware. We see now a population who are living longer. Today's elderly mobile are rapidly becoming the elderly immobile. They are in need of continuing care. That is the next stage of sheltered accommodation, where 24-hour nursing and medical facilities are available on the same site as the flat or bungalow development in which the elderly live.
The amount of control and regulation of the accommodation is limited. The code of practice will have relevance to the purchase and running of this type of property, but I put down a marker to the Government that people involved with social services and health will have to watch developments carefully lest the unscrupulous get involved and people's whole way of life is threatened because of poor management.
We also see the development of the leisure village which has arisen out of sheltered accommodation—a complete facility providing for every want of an elderly person. Those too are being developed without regulation or a code of practice to delineate how the developments are sold, and to lay down the terms and conditions of their management and the rights of redress of anyone who encounters difficulties with them.
Looking to the future, I also put down a marker about sheltered accommodation outside the boundaries of the United Kingdom. As sure as eggs are eggs, British developers are already using their expertise to build sheltered accommodation abroad. Currently it is being done by high-quality developers. I do not believe that people are at risk if they purchase such accommodation, but I can see a day when the opportunistic enter the industry and the House may have to debate the difficulties that people are running into over the purchase of sheltered accommodation abroad. Again, the code of practice that the working party is drawing up will serve as a useful indicator to prevent problems.
An article a week ago in The Daily Telegraph was occasioned by problems encountered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but that is not his fault, in that he did not know that the subject was to be raised. He referred to the continuing difficulties even though a year had passed since a debate in the House on home-based sheltered accommodation. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, north of the border, people in one development run by a reputable company are still experiencing difficulties over service and maintenance charges. It would appear that the industry still has a long way to go to get its accounting procedures sorted out. That was a key element for the working party.
The working party received widespread support. On it have sat representatives of organisations such as Age Concern, the House Builders Federation, McCarthy and Stone as representatives of major developers, and the National Federation of Housing Associations. The whole gamut of those involved in the building and management of sheltered accommodation was represented on the working party organised under the aegis of the House Builders Federation. I want to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to Roger Humber, who chaired the working party, and to Vivien Aldred, who, as assistant director of the House Builders Federation carried the burden of much of the work in drafting the comprehensive approach to setting new standards for the private sheltered accommodation industry.
The draft code of practice went out for consultation to a wide range of bodies, including councils professional bodies and others. We have received the consultation papers back and the code of practice has incorporated the recommendations. We have tried hard to incorporate points of good practice in setting up a well-managed scheme covering sale and resale, services, service and maintenance charges and budgets. We are trying to introduce regularity and uniformity into the approach of the industry so that when people study the sales literature, in no way can they be misled about what exactly the deal will be.
During the last year our efforts have been aided by the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the code of practice drawing the attention of potential purchasers to that important legislation. That means that, in future, service and maintenance charge statements must be accurate and must not make misleading statements. If they do the law will apply. It is a comprehensive code designed to make certain that the buyer can beware because he is fully furnished with information. The code goes on to say that in the case of every new development, from now on, there should be a post-purchase pack giving the purchaser all the necessary information. This would set


out the obligations of the builder, the managing agent and anyone else with a legal responsibility, lest it should be necessary to respond to complaints.
We have picked up many of the problems that the 150 or so people from all over the country who have written to me on this matter have raised. Their evidence has been laid before the working party. Thus the voice of the consumer, so far as our activities are concerned, has been heard.
I want to deal with one or two points that have arisen from our investigations. Some of the agents that manage sheltered accommodation are also closely associated with the builders. The industry must now consider very carefully the separation of construction from management. Those who are responsible for managing sheltered accommodation should act in a truly independent manner, in the interests of leaseholders.
Then there is the question of value for money. Many elderly people who buy this type of accommodation are seduced by its superficial attractiveness. The quality is high, but these people's financial base is fixed. While interest rates are high, the investment income from the capital freed by the sale of their conventional home and the purchase of sheltered accommodation enables them to meet the management and service charges easily. However, when interest rates fall, some of these people will be in difficulty, bearing in mind that service and maintenance charges rise inexorably. The industry must take urgent steps to address this problem. The last thing we want is a new breed of welfare cases.
Today's sheltered accommodation caters for the mobile elderly. In 20 years' time the residents may well be the elderly immobile and may have to break into their capital base to re-equip their homes with bathrooms and kitchens to cater for their new circumstances. This is something that the industry must take into account in formulating its future policy. The code of practice will do much to redress many of the problems. Its credibility will depend on the spirit with which it is applied by the industry.
In the year of the code of practice, the industry should give urgent consideration to the formation of a trade association, or the creation of an ombudsman facility whereby people with genuine complaints could find proper redress. This code of practice answers many of the complaints to which I drew attention in the House last year. Currently we are negotiating, within the National Housebuilding Council, a new mechanism to give it teeth. It is a voluntary operation, welcomed by the industry, and it should do much to protect the good name of sheltered accommodation, as well as to redress the problems that have been identified.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I want to raise the matter of the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw funding from Newbattle Abbey college in Dalkeith, which is in my constituency. The decision was intimated on Thursday 9 March, in the answer to a written question, to which I shall return later. Parliament must consider whether it is right to adjourn for Easter, in view of the fact the decision to which I refer concerns a national question of importance to the whole of Scotland, which should he debated.
Newbattle Abbey college is an adult residential facility. It has been christened the second-chance college for mature students who, for a variety of reasons, decide to

undergo a period of disciplined residential study. It is specially equipped for this purpose and has the necessary experience and environment. Its success cannot be challenged. The best parallel I can think of is Ruskin college, Oxford. This is Scotland's equivalent of Ruskin. That is one of the compelling reasons for its being a national question. With the withdrawal of funding, Scotland will lose its equivalent of Ruskin, and there is no similar adult residential college in the country. In educational terms, the blow is the harder to take, in that there are four such colleges in England and Wales.
It is easy to understand the anger in some education circles in Scotland at this decision. The manner of its taking must be questioned by Parliament. for it could be a sign that, in decision-making, all is not well in the Scottish Office—that there is evidence of faulty administration, if not maladministration. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced last year that he was considering the withdrawal of funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I had a meeting with him, and I have kept the notes
One of the first issues that we raised concerned consultation. We put it to him that it was rather peculiar that there had been no consultation whatsoever with any of the education bodies involved including the trustees and the board of governors. I received a very strange and rather garbled reply. The Secretary of State said that the Scottish Education Department had raised the issue. One wonders who is in control of the Department. We put it to the Secretary of State that there was plenty of time for consultation, as it was anticipated that funding would not end until the 1988–89 academic year. We pointed out that all the statements in his letter to my hon. Friend had a tone of total finality.
That tack was changed very quickly when the purpose of the college was questioned at the interview. We asked why there had been a tone of such finality, why there had been no consultation, although an attempt had been made to imply that the matter just might be given due consideration. The argument advanced was that the college had served its purpose, that there had to be a change and that resources could be better used. If the argument is that adult residential colleges have outlived their usefulness, that is in direct contradiction of the Alexander report. Indeed, to some extent it was argued that there should be no adult residential colleges, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales.
We pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that our arguments deserved an answer. Surely the Secretary of State must consider the issue of adult education in Scotland—in this case what we have described as the last of the Ruskins. One of the arguments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward concerned funding. He criticised other public bodies, such as the trade unions, for no longer assisting. I must nail the lie of the statement at the weekend that the Newbattle Abbey residential college was funded by trade unions and was meant to be funded by trade unions. That is being economical with the truth. It is simply not true. If it was felt that there had to be some new system of funding, surely there should have been some consultation instead of that shooting-from-the-hip style of Government. Why take a totally arbitrary decision on whether the college should raise its own revenue?
We even had to correct the Secretary of State about the college population. Correspondence had been submitted


to the Scottish Education Department and we presumed that, because the Secretary of State was interested, he would have seen it. We pointed out that, according to his figures, 45 people had been "lost" and that the typical figure since 1979 was 95. In an aside, somebody said he was quite sure that cannibalism was not practised in the Scottish Education Department. The mature students of Newbattle Abbey had also sent a letter to the Department about the college population. When I asked whether the figures that had been submitted were accurate, I received the reply that the Secretary of State would look into it.
When I mentioned that the students' letter also referred to the annual finances, the Secretary of State fell back on the ploy of saying that the figures had come from the Scottish Education Department. I have been a Minister in my time, and I would say that a Minister is responsible for the figures that his Department give. It is a pretty weak defence if someone as esteemed as the Secretary of State for Scotland blames his Department for the figures.
I pointed out that the students had explained the geographical areas from which they came. I was fortunate in having with me the statistical bulletin of the Scottish Education Department. Although I do not want to go into this in any detail, on the argument about students coming from south of the border, I quoted the references in the bulletin to St. Andrews university in the county of Fife. I have great knowledge of St. Andrews because I am a former chairman of the Fife county education committee and some of my family are graduates of the university. The statistical bulletin showed that, on the question of adult residential colleges taking students from south of the border, St. Andrews university should be closed because a preponderance of its students come from south of the border—and they are most welcome.
The Secretary of State produced the strangest argument of all—when I said that Newbattle was the equivalent of Ruskin college at Oxford or of Coleg Harlech in Wales and that those colleges will still be allowed to function although the Secretary of State is proposing to put Newbattle Abbey to death. I received the weak answer that the Secretary of State for Education and Science finances those colleges but that he, the Secretary of State for Scotland, finances Newbattle Abbey.
The final decision was the most distasteful of all and it is why I raise this issue today. I tabled a written question on 1 February asking the Secretary of State what response he was making to the letter from the governors and the chairman giving him a short outline scheme of how the college could be retained. Despite the fact that that was a priority question, the written reply was that the matter was still being considered and that the Secretary of State would let me know. I waited for a while and then did what hon. Members often do—on 16 February I tabled another question, pursuant to the first. The answer was that a response would be made soon.
Then, last Thursday, 9 March, the Secretary of State announced his decision, by what we must assume to have been an arranged question, tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). A civil servant came to my home with the letter on Thursday afternoon but I was not at home as I was attending a meeting in Sheffield. The chairman of the governors received a letter announcing the decision at 2 pm, half an hour before the

governors' meeting. Incidentally, the letter was delivered to the wrong college, to Eskbank college in Dalkeith. Not only was there indecent haste in reaching that decision, but the procedure followed would not score high marks for Government efficiency.
It is with great regret that I have to say that I have already had occasion to question the administration of the Scottish Office. I have had occasion to write to the Secretary of State for Scotland, asking for a meeting—the subject of the meeting does not matter now—but it took him a month to reply—and the reply refused the meeting. A month later I received an apology about the length of time that he had taken to reply to my letter. The Secretary of State admitted that that was a disgraceful way to treat an hon. Member.
That story proves that there is an element of maladministration in the Scottish Office: perhaps that is one reason why the Scottish Office is treated with such political contempt in Scotland at present. Indeed, it is predicted that the Conservative party will probably be wiped out in Scotland at the next general election, which is not surprising if the Government carry on in this manner towards hon. Members and respected figures in education in Scotland.
The central issue is whether there should be a change in the organisation of Newbattle Abbey college. The governors' request was reasonable. They asked that there should be a five year leading-in time if there were to be any changes. As we know, there is nothing more constant than change. A strange irony that will not go unnoticed in Scotland is that, if the college came under the Department of Education and Science, a minimum two-year period would be required before any change could be made.
This is a sad and disgraceful case, and the Scottish Office has not come out of it very well. The issue must be debated before the House adjourns. It is in the Government's interests, never mind the education interests that I have mentioned, that the maladministration of the Scottish Office be investigated.
I shall conclude with a quotation:
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into two teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.
That is a quotation from Petronius Arbiter in 210 BC. The Scottish Office is doing a wonderful job trying to ape that statement.

Mr. David Porter: I was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during last year's Easter Adjournment debate. I began by saying that the House should adjourn so that I could remind my wife and children that they are not a single-parent family. I repeat that on this occasion, as it is so good it deserves wider currency.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend at the beginning of his remarks, but would it not be appropriate to record that, since that event, his family has increased with the gift of a further daughter, whom we all welcome?

Mr. Porter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that.
I should like to raise the subject of education in so far as it relates to recent developments. My assessment as I go around my constituency is that many teachers—perhaps most—are beginning to accept the changes that we have introduced. Recently, a trade union activist at a school in my constituency said, rather sadly, that it was a tragedy for the Labour movement that a Tory Government had introduced the GCSE, as it was exactly what was needed.
There was much scaremongering about governors during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was wondered whether there would be enough of them and whether they could cope with the amount of work that they would have to do. There is no shortage of volunteers to be school governors in Suffolk.
We are hearing more nationally about governors' opportunities and less about their problems. We have much public relations work to do to convey our aims to the public, such as those for assessment, standards and the national curriculum. Much harm is being done by some governors who have taken office even though they are fundamentally against what we are doing.
In general, parents are accepting that schools take more local decisions and have more local responsibilities and that they have a part to play. However, there is still a credibility gap, when we remove surplus places through school closures in rural areas, especially at a time when the young population of schools is increasing.
I should declare a kind of interest, as a former high school teacher. It is nearly seven years since I finished teaching in classrooms, but it has become a different world. The reality of our entrepreneurial world, business and commercial realities and education reforms has fundamentally shaken secondary schools and colleges. Enormous changes have been absorbed. The same will happen in universities and primary schools, which are beginning to get to grips with new realities. In some ways, it will be painful for them, as it was for secondary schools.
The changes are not all related to money, although it has a place. Historically, the needs of and funding for primary schools has too often been under-estimated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has frequently stressed the importance of the primary education sector. The primary and home phase are crucial. If, when children start primary education, everything is not quite right or on target for their development, it can be put right. If it is not, by the time they reach middle school it is sometimes too late, and by the time they reach high school it is a damage limitation exercise.
The modern practice in primary schools demands much more equipment. Many primary school teachers believe that the position is deteriorating. The Education Reform Act set up a new formula to determine the funding of primary schools, about which they are quite worried because they believe that the historic under-estimate will be perpetuated. They believe that all pupils of statutory school age should be treated similarly and cite what may seem silly examples, but none the less they illustrate the point. Infants use more materials than older children, which is self-evident. Infant library books are brief and read in a day or two, so a larger selection is necessary. Frequent handling by less-skilled hands means that equipment must be replaced more frequently. In many primary schools, that view is perfectly valid.
Valuable teacher time is sometimes wasted on trivia, such as collecting and locating scrap materials instead of

stock-cupboard supplies, mixing paint, cleaning equipment, tying shoe laces and all the things that are an ancillary's job. Teachers believe that it is time that discrimination against young people was ended. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass to the Secretary of State for Education and Science that concern about the primary sector. What I have said may not apply in London, where priorities are often different.
There is talk of teacher shortages, both in subjects and geographically. Answers to questions that I tabled last week gave the figures for Suffolk, but they appear to be out of date. I am asking for more up-to-date figures from local teacher representatives rather than anecdotal evidence that there is a teacher shortage in some areas. Reports vary, but clearly teachers are still applying for jobs. House prices, especially in East Anglia, where they have doubled over the past 18 months, are a serious problem. Golden hellos, regional differentials and individual deals with teachers under the new school powers should help enormously.
The problem of subject shortages must be addressed. The national curriculum is at risk if we cannot recruit quality teachers and the necessary number of them. I caution against differentials of salary whereby secondary school teachers are compared with primary school teachers, which would further devalue the primary sector.
I hope that the period of upheaval, confrontation and dispute of a few years ago has passed. We must maintain an all-round partnership if reforms are to work and to stick between teachers, parents, taxpayers and children.
I urge praise from the Government for those who have adapted and a period of encouragement and self-value that can be cultivated among teachers, on which public esteem can be built. Without public esteem, education will be relegated and we cannot afford, with fewer and fewer young people, to allow that to happen.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish to raise the pressing problems experienced in my part of the world with water. We have problems with our beaches, flooding, our water supply and especially sewage treatment.
I especially wish to address my remarks to water quality. Most frightening is the question mark still hanging over the Camelford incident in north Cornwall, in which 20,000 people were affected by aluminium contamination of their water supply on 7 July 1988. At that time, South West Water said that there was no risk to health, but there followed reports of sickness, blue bath water, people's hair turning green and, far more serious, implications for long-term health regarding sulphuric acid contamination of the water supply.
On 5 August—almost a month after the original incident—it was admitted that the contamination had been caused by 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate being pumped into the wrong tank at Lowermoor treatment works. Over a month later, South West Water finally accepted full responsibility for poisoning the water supply. It was not until mid-December 1988 that it was admitted that the level of poisoning was nearly double the level originally disclosed. Health tests are still continuing on the people of Camelford, but the Government are about to remove themselves from a responsible role by selling off the water authority.
The secrecy surrounding this incident is unforgivable and the Government have colluded in trying to sweep it


under the carpet by refusing to hold a proper independent inquiry. I have called for such an inquiry before, and I do so again now in the strongest possible terms. It is a disgrace that no inquiry has been held. The issue should be debated by the House because it has implications generally for water treatment, the protection of consumers and the Government's privatisation strategy. The Government are about to wash their hands of yet another responsibility, but they have failed to solve many of the problems of the water industry in Cornwall or in the running of South West Water.
In 1987, when the South West Water corporate plan was submitted, 196,000 of the authority's customers received at some time water that failed to comply with the bacteriological standards set by the European Community, 129,000 received water that failed the aesthetic acceptability test and 20,000 received water containing excessive undesirable chemicals. By that time, 33 supply areas had been granted delays in coming up to the standard required—and that was before the Camelford incident.
In 1988, 23 of the 109 designated beaches in the South West Water region failed to meet European standards. The Sunday Times yesterday revealed that one in five of Britain's sewage works was breaking the law by discharging sub-standard waste into rivers, often by storm overflows, which were cited as one of the worst culprits. Almost one fifth of the beaches in the South West Water area have failed to meet the EC standards and experts have said that it will cost at least £150 million to clean up 14 beaches, including Marazion and Mounts bay. Yet the Government plan to privatise the company and the question mark that hangs over that privatisation is whether a future private company will be able, willing or interested to make the necessary investment.
It is no wonder that there is a problem, for South West Water has admitted that 55 out of the 75 main sea outfalls and 129 out of 134 main estuary outfalls have been judged unsatisfactory. That does not even take into account the storm overflows and minor discharges, which could bring the total number to more than 2,000. The result is that, although we live in an area that relies heavily on tourism to raise money, many of our beaches have failed to reach the safe bathing standards. In the borough of Restormel, for example, Readymoney cove, Fowey, Charlestown-Duporth and Pentewan beaches have failed to reach those standards. Pentewan was found to be pollluted at four times the European limit.
My colleague, Councillor Malcolm Brown from St. Austell, attended a recent structure plan meeting and roundly condemned our sewage problems. He said:
As a country we are way behind our neighbours in Western Europe.
He was right to highlight that tragedy and we should debate public investment in the water supply before we pack our bags for the Easter holidays. I suspect that many hon. Members will go to foreign climes where such problems do not exist and hope they can quietly forget about them.
I have received many letters from constituents on the same issue. Gorran and District residents association wrote to me saying:

raw untreated sewage flowing down the main street on to the beach and into the stream which also flows across the beach must be a health hazard.
The Pentewan Sands sailing club, which relies on a clean sea for its income, wrote:
This year we are holding the World Division I Board Sailing Championships. We are greatly concerned over the increasing level of pollution which is adversely affecting the attractions…it would be a tragedy if due to the continuing and growing discharge of effluent into the bay, major sailing events were directed away.
The experts back up that concern. A report issued by the Marine Conservation Society and the Coastal Anti-Pollution League says that 300 million gallons of raw sewage are disposed of every day in our coastal waters, much of it in the wrong places and untreated, contrary to the Prime Minister's recent comments on television. She seems to be unaware of the fact that untreated sewage still goes in to our coastal waters. A survey by environmental health officers revealed that 52 per cent. of the beaches in England and Wales failed to meet EEC standards, whereas the Government claimed that the figure was only 38 per cent.
Many of our rivers are deteriorating as well, as a result of changes in farming practice. In 1980, 88 per cent. of rivers were in classes 1A or 1B. By 1985, the figure had dropped to 66 per cent., with only 58 per cent. of monitored river lengths satisfying the river quality objectives.
Part of the problem for Cornwall has been that it has the least dense population, with only 132 people per sq km in comparison with 328—the average for England and Wales. I come from a rural area, where the cost of transporting water and sewage per person is far greater than elsewhere. I am concerned that people in Cornwall will have to pay to clear up the mess after privatisation simply because successive Governments have failed to invest properly in clean water and proper sewerage systems.
Although only 1·5 million live in the South West Water area, at times there are up to 500,000 tourists supplementing that number. Local people therefore have to pay for the infrastructure to support a heavy influx of visitors. Those visitors are welcome, but I am sure that they expect the beaches to be cleaned up through national intervention and Government money, rather than depending on an over-stretched local private company which will not be able to find the money for investment. South West Water is trying to clear up the problem, but the Government have restricted its borrowing powers and, as a result, it is unable to spend any more than its charges. It has no permission to borrow. South West Water must have the opportunity to increase its programme, but the restrictions on borrowing make that impossible.
The result of poor investment in sewage treatment in earlier years has placed an embargo on the building of new homes in many areas of Cornwall. Truro is a prime example. I do not want to seem to be considering only my own patch, so I shall quote from a letter I received from Councillor David Hocking of Penryn, objecting to the embargo in his area. It highlights well the impact that such an embargo can have on local people. He writes:
The proposed embargo I understand will be a total embargo on all housing, including extensions, which causes great concern. Penryn and Falmouth since 1980 have lost 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively of council owned housing to the private sector with no houses to be built by the District council to replace them the housing problems


continue to get worse … In Penryn I have several housing associations interested in building houses on a shared equity scheme, some to rent and some to sell to the private sector to fill an urgent local need, this I feel is under threat as the embargo could last for 5 to 6 or even 7 years and the figure quoted to carry out the necessary work is in the region of £10 million.
Such an embargo on house building, especially in much-needed shared ownership and housing association housing, is catastrophic, especially in view of the difficulties my county has in housing people who are much in need at present.
The Government's only answer to any of that is privatisation. It is hardly a surprise that this Government take that attitude. They believe that, if the shares belong to someone else, the problems do as well. However, whether it is poisoned water or polluted beaches and streams, the problems are public, not private. South West Water has been boasting that it has been reinvesting its profits to start to tackle those problems, but privatisation will transfer those profits into the pockets of already wealthy shareholders.
Prices are already rising for privatisation and the burden is falling on the local population. It is time that the Government started to think about the public good rather than private affluence. After all their words about the environment, they could not do better than to start by investing some of the Chancellor's surplus billions in tomorrow's Budget into cleaning up our water. They would be doing so by public demand and the House should be given the chance to respond.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I wish to refer to compensation following compulsory purchase orders. I ought perhaps to declare an interest—or should I say a non-interest—because in my farming activities I am currently subject to a compulsory purchase order relative to the construction of the M40. That compulsory purchase order is already in place, however, and in the light of that experience I am looking towards the future.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his recent response at Prime Minister's Question Time. I am grateful that, following our exchange, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has published a consultative document, albeit rather low-key and somewhat specialised. In general, the proposals—for example, the proposal to rationalise the payment of interest on deferred compensation for a variety of public purposes—are welcome. It is, however, typical of the thinking of any Government that the document appears to have been triggered off by the rather contingent fact that the abolition of the rating system for the domestic householder left no key in place for the calculation of home loss payments so a new formula has had to be devised.
In addition to those detailed considerations, a number of much more general issues of public policy need airing and we should have a full debate on them in due course. The first concerns the very special problems of equity when one privately owned piece of land is taken over by another undertaking which is already, or is about to become, part of the private sector. The House rightly feels that compulsory purchase will be required for public utilities, whether privately or publicly owned. There may be a danger—this is recognised in the consultative document—that one farmer, landowner or householder may have

his property taken over and used by another private undertaking for profit. For example, some of the land taken under compulsory purchase order in connection with the Channel tunnel was taken for duty-free shops and the like.
There is another anomaly, on which I may have more to say on another occasion—the anomaly in compensation for the fencing of fast roads. If one's land is taken for a motorway one gets a free fence; if it is taken for a high quality dual carriageway, a fence may be provided but it may be knocked off the calculations. Similarly, there is still a residual problem in the operation of the Crichel Down procedure, which may be of benefit to some landowners but not to others because of different treatments by different public or other requiring authorities.
Those are examples of problems which remain, and a sense of unfairness undoubtedly still pertains. I stress that we have a common interest in straightening out the procedures and in getting things done. We do not say that there is never a case for compulsory purchase—rather the reverse—but the system must be seen to be fair. If it is not seen to be fair, further delays will result in the construction of very necessary works. To cite an example that has arisen just this week, one has only to consider British Rail's experience in trying to construct its Channel link to realise how difficult it is to get proposals accepted over the caucuses of interest in the way.
Such a system will not be acceptable in the future. I will identify three major advances that will be necessary in the planning of any new major infrastructure. First, it will be necessary to show that there is at least some measure of compensating environ-mental benefit for any environmental damage. Secondly, local communities through which the works may run, or which the works may affect, should obtain a measure of compensation for their losses. Thirdly, there needs to be a better deal for the individual. I should like the old philosophy of the compensation law—that one receives market value and no more—altered to allow an uplift of 10 per cent. or some other figure to reflect the fact that the sale is not made with the consent of the seller. In that sense, compensation does not at present reflect the seller's loss.
In any case, we are talking about a matter of public prudence, because it is essential to get common consent if works are to be carried out. The M40 was conceived 20 years before construction began. That is far too long a period. This debate is about delaying the Easter Adjournment, but it draws attention to the dangers and costs of delay in the matters to which I have referred.

Mr. David Winnick: One of the themes of our brief debate today has been the need for more public money to be spent. That has been mentioned by Conservative Members, by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and, of course, by Labour Members. We therefore hope that tomorrow's Budget will not be a repeat of last year's Budget, which benefited only the rich and prosperous and held no appeal for the overwhelming majority of ordinary people.
I want to leave a few minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), but there are two matters that I wish to raise. The first is the report on toxic waste published last week by the Select Committee on the Environment. That report was an


indictment of the appalling extent of the dumping of toxic waste in Britain. Paragraphs 264 and 265 and onwards refer to the situation in my borough, where there is much antagonism between the local community, including the council, and a company whose operations involve toxic waste. Everything in the report proves that the people of Walsall have been absolutely right to demonstrate against toxic waste and to protest against the borough being used as a dumping ground for it. I urge that the report should be debated as soon as possible and legislation introduced at any early date. No one can doubt that the report was highly critical of the way in which the dumping of toxic waste operates in Britain and of the Department of the Environment. We need early action and early legislation to deal with the matter.
The second matter that I am keen to raise, albeit briefly, is one that I raised long before it became a subject of great controversy in connection with a certain novel. In recent months thousands of political prisoners have been executed in Iran. Amnesty International has spotlighted the terror in that unhappy country. A few weeks ago—before the international furore over the novel—a number of Labour Members urged the Government at Foreign Office Question Time to protest in the most effective possible way against the terror, and against the executions taking place in Iran.
Young people in their teens—boys and girls alike—are being put to death by the present regime in Iran. An Amnesty report quotes a prisoner in Iran as follows:
One night a young girl … was brought straight from the courtroom to our cell. She had just been sentenced to death, and was confused and agitated. She didn't seem to know why she was there. She settled down to sleep next to me, but at intervals she woke up with a start, terrified, and grasped me, asking if it were true that she really would be executed. I put my arms around her and tried to comfort her, and reassure her that it wouldn't happen, but at about 4 am they came for her and she was taken away to be executed. She was 16 years old.
That happened not in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy but in present-day Iran. The use of torture in Iran is widespread—perhaps worse than in any other country since the end of the last war. All honour to those in Iran who have resisted the terror and the continuing mass murders—the time will come when they will be internationally honoured and recognised for what they are doing, just as those who resisted the Nazi tyranny in the 1930s were honoured.
Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in the futile Gulf war. I do not say for one moment that Iraq was blameless—I do not have much time for that regime either—but Iran more than any other country was determined to keep that war going and not to allow peace negotiations to take place. It agreed to end the war only at the last moment, when it knew full well that it could not continue because it did not have the manpower to carry on after all the loss of life over the years, and it knew that the regime would be endangered if it continued.
To some extent, Iran has used the controversy about the novel to try to improve its own image, but most Islamic countries as well as Europe and the United States recognise that Iran is a murderous tyranny. Its rulers have been keen to continue to allow torture and murder. Just as in Nazi Germany the first victims before the war broke out were Germans, so today in Iran most of the victims and

those who continue to be tortured—boys and girls as well as adults—are devout Moslems. In their last moments before they are executed, they say the prayers of their religion.
It is not for the Iranian regime to make out that it is the sole defender of the Moslem religion—far from it. That is why most Islamic countries recognise Iran for what it is. I hope that we shall have further opportunities to debate the subject after the recess. The regime in Iran has been a party to mass murder, torture and kidnapping and its rulers have shown the same contempt for international law as they have for human rights. There is no need for the United Kingdom to apologise to the Iranian regime. Above all, the Iranian regime should apologise to its own people.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The House should not adjourn for Easter unless hon. Members have had a full debate on the poll tax—not a clinical objective debate on the pros and cons of the measure but an opportunity for hon. Members who wish to see its defeat make an unashamed attempt to convince working people, as an act of solidarity and defiance, to join the mass campaign for non-payment.
On 10 March, in a debate about lawlessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said that he will not stay within the law and will not pay the poll tax. If Hansard is anything to go by, the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and others almost had apoplexy. I hope to raise their political blood pressure a little further in the couple of minutes available to me. Their reaction was to my hon. Friend's legitimate objections to the draconian economic and undemocratic attacks of the poll tax by his strategy of
selective non-payment by people who wish to give a political lead".—[Official Report, 10 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 1151.]
Either on my hon. Friend's basis or on my preferred strategy of not paying the poll tax as part of a mass campaign of non-payment, over 10 per cent. of Labour Members have already made a similar declaration since 19 of us drew up a non-payment declaration in July of last year. Important or interesting as that may be, far more important is the reaction of ordinary workingclass families.
On Saturday 4 March, 450 delegates and visitors, representing six regional federations and 150 affiliated bodies, attended the founding conference of the All-Scotland Anti-Poll Tax Federation, ranging from the Shetland Islands to the urban heartlands of Lothian and Strathclyde. The federation's affiliated membership is already over 300,000. I searched through every newspaper in the Library, but on Monday 6 March not a word was said in London or Scottish-based newspapers about the conference. The Tory press lowered a cloak of silence on that movement. It may be easy for the Leader of the House to dismiss such observations as part of a conspiracy theory, but I cannot believe that it is a coincidence that there was no report, but no matter. Less easy to hide from the working class of Glasgow will be the 20,000 people on the anti-poll tax march and rally next Saturday 18 March, at a demonstration organised by the Strathclyde federation and the YTURC.
This is the last opportunity for hon. Members to ask for a full debate on the poll tax before its introduction into Scotland next month. It will be introduced into England and Wales one year later, in April 1990.
Most adults in Scotland are now receiving community charge voucher books—12 tear-out slips—to prepare them for their monthly visits to the post office. Despite the severely cushioned and artificially low level of the tax in its first year—the 20th-century version of Danegeld—in a couple of weeks, each single person in employment in Glasgow on a take-home pay of as little as £55 a week will have to pay £25 a month or £6 a week. A man and woman living as a married couple will be jointly considered. If one partner is not employed and not registered as unemployed—therefore, receiving nothing—they will still be liable to the poll tax, even if their partner takes home as little as £110 a week.
In my constituency, the position will be at least as bad. Our city treasurer estimated that, by next April, the poll tax will be £350. I think that it will be nearer £400.
The unemployed, pensioners and students will be expected to pay 20 per cent of the poll tax—that is about £60 a year in Strathclyde or £70 in Coventry. To Tory Members, that may seem to be a minute sum, but no one in the dole queues in Coventry, Scotland or elsewhere can afford to lose the price of two pints of milk, a loaf of bread and a small tin of beans each week. Perhaps that is one reason why, this morning, over 12 months before the introduction of the tax in Coventry, England and Wales, I received a petition from 1,330 pensioners in my area asking for the abandonment of the tax.
Millionaire Tory Members and Lords will save thousands of pounds. Perhaps that is how they managed literally to dig up 100 extra Lords to defeat the Mates amendment last summer. That wealth transfusion will result in individuals such as Lord Vestey saving £4,700 a year—perhaps as compensation for his little local difficulty in paying his tax bills a couple of years back.
At least the current rates system has some correlation with income—the higher the value of the property, the higher the income. The poll tax takes no account of ability to pay. It is regressive, its method of registration is draconian, and it attacks basic civil and democratic rights—for example, the right to vote. My hon. Friends have put those arguments.
We are told that the poll tax is the flagship of the Prime Minister's third term. I prefer to think that, in retrospect, we will regard it as her Titanic—the point at which she and her party's political fortunes went into terminal decline.
From next month in Scotland, and from April 1990 in England and Wales, people will have a choice. They can either pay the poll tax and let the Government continue to ride roughshod over working-class people, or they can refuse to take any more and decide to fight back by refusing to pay the tax, not as individual martyrs but as part of a mass, collective refusal such as that being organised by the Scottish Anti-Poll Tax Federation and by the growing anti-poll tax union movement in the rest of the country.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have had a long haul since Christmas, but, during that time, we have made good progress with the legislation. Sadly, though, we

have suffered the loss of Sir Raymond Gower. He was widely respected and liked on both sides of the House, and his work for his constituency won the esteem of all. We shall miss him.
The debate has raised many national and international constituency issues. In all, there have been 16 contributions. I did not detect much feeling against adjourning for the Easter week. I hope that the House will agree the motion after I have responded to as many as I can of the issues that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) took the opportunity to open the debate. He is entitled to do that. He seems, at least for the present, to have given up the traditional role of Opposition Front-Bench Members commenting on Back- Bench speeches, which is a pity. It seems to show perhaps one further move from the days when the Labour party had any responsibility for the Government of this country.
The hon. Gentleman raised two subjects. He referred to the Budget. Obviously, he would not expect me to comment on the Budget. A full and detailed account of the position regarding war widows and their payments was set out before Standing Committee F which considered the Social Security Bill on 7 March. It would not be right for me to quote from the proceedings or go into great detail. I shall make just one or two brief comments on the hon. Gentleman's speech. First, if he thought he was quoting from a letter of the Prime Minister dated 5 April 1983, I must tell him that that letter was a forgery.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred to that date. In fact, I corrected him and said that it was a letter in 1978.

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that that has been cleared up, because a number of hon. Members have been talking about a letter dated 5 April 1983 and that was given some currency, when the date was not correct. There was a letter written when my right hon. Friend was in opposition. Of course, since that date there have been a number of changes in the post-1973 position. The tax relief for war widows has changed and there is now age allowance. A substantial number of those war widows also receive full retirement pensions.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in Committee, there would be substantial difficulty if we were to apply the post-1973 occupational pensions to war widows because, of course, a number of others would be affected—such as the disabled, other groups of widows and public sector workers—and the cost would be substantially higher than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras stated.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not give way, because the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) took more time than it was agreed that he should, and I shall not have time to answer a number of the matters raised.
The Minister for Social Security promised on 7 March in a Standing Committee debate to study the details of any particular cases that are sent to him and to assess them on the basis of hardship and need. He will be consulting members of the Committee to consider some of the cases mentioned.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also mentioned tax relief on private medical insurance


premiums. We believe that relief is needed because members of company medical insurance schemes usually lose their benefit on retirement. We shall need to provide help for those who wish to continue with medical insurance when their income falls and premiums rise.
I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) about the imports of Russian coal into the Nottinghamshire coalfields. As I believe he recognises, the level of imports is a commercial matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I understand that the small volume of coal imported represented less than one day's burn at the stations involved. Those imports hardly represent a major threat to the relationship between the electricity industry and British Coal. We have always made it clear that the electricity industry must be free to buy its coal where it judges best. Coal will, of course, continue to be the major source of fuel for electricity generation for many years to come. Indeed, I understand that British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board have recently agreed to an extension of their existing agreement on coal supplies until 31 December of this year.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the methane gas at the Arkwright colliery; indeed, we have corresponded on this subject. He wished to have the release of some documents. Of course, those are British Coal's internal management documents and release of them is a matter for the corporation and not for any Minister. We have no statutory power to compel the release of that information. However, I have every confidence that, if British Coal were asked by the Health and Safety Executive, it would make those documents available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) rightly mentioned the resurrection of Corby. It was very much a steel town. I remember with affection his predecessor, Bill Homewood, who sat on the other side of the House. He was a steel man all his life. I was sorry to read in the papers that he has recently died. My hon. Friend mentioned the progress that has been made in Corby and gave a lot of credit for that to many people. Not so long ago I visited him in his constituency and I agree with everything he says, except that I believe that my hon. Friend was too modest to include himself in the people who have shown drive and enthusiasm in rebuilding Corby after the difficulties of earlier years. He is right to point other areas to the lessons of Corby.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the concern about the burial of diseased cattle in a landfill tip in her constituency. Incineration and burial are both safe methods of disposing of cattle suspected of having BSE, and local needs and circumstances determine which method is used. I appreciate that it is obviously of concern to her constituents, and I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write to her to give her the reassurance that I am sure is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke about land use. When he speaks about land use, the House is well advised to listen because he knows much about it. As he knows, we have recently encouraged local planning authorities to increase the coverage of local development plans and to keep them up-to-date, so as to

provide a clear framework for day-to-day decisions on planning applications. The White Paper entitled "Future of Development Plans" published in January takes that approach further by proposing a single tier of mandatory district-wide development plans to be prepared and adoped by district councils using streamlined procedures. Such plans would need to be consistent with national and regional guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the planning policies of the county councils.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) rightly raised the question of rivers and pollution in his constituency. I was present when he recently raised the matter with the Prime Minister. The River Derwent near York, which provides a lot of water for his constituency, is of the highest of standards. The Rivers Don and Rother are not so good. Some £25 million will be spent on improving a stretch of the River Don, and improvements to the remainder of the Rother will be made through the extension of the sewage treatment works' capacity that should enable the Rother to be upgraded. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Gentleman's points.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for raising a number of questions about the EEC. He is right that the way in which we deal with those matters in the House is not as satisfactory as it should be. I am having discussions with a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider whether there can be some improvement.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the concern about the entitlement of certain foreign beneficially owned fishing vessels to remain United Kingdom registered vessels. I believe that he and the Government are on the same side of the matter. That is now before the Court of Appeal and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment in more detail than that. The judgment is expected on 15 March and then, of course, the case may go to the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the working party the House Builders Federation that produced the report to which he referred. I know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the report which my hon. Friend produced together with his colleagues is an admirable document and is being considered by the Department of the Environment and others.
The hon. Member the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) raised the question of Newbattle Abbey college, and the Government's decision to cease payment of a grant to that college. Of course, the future of the college is a matter for its governors and trustees. I understand his disappointment at the decision, but I do not accept that the decision was made in haste. It would take too long to deal with the detailed arguments tonight, but I believe that they are set out very clearly in a letter to the hon. Gentleman from my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) raised the question of teacher shortage in primary education. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of the GCSE and I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. There are more than enough


primary teachers nationwide, but there are recruitment difficulties in parts of London and the south-east. However, recruitment to primary school training is buoyant so there is scope for employing more teachers to meet present shortages. The implications of the national curriculum will change the pattern of demand for secondary subject teachers in the 1990s. We shall have enough teachers overall, but shall need more in some subjects, such as technology, science, and modern languages, and less in some others.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the quality of water. The general point needs to be made that one of the great advantages of the Water Bill, which will privatise the water industry, is that it will create the National Rivers Authority. Then we shall have a much better mechanism for improving the quality of our rivers and waters. Privatisation will, of course, enable much more money to be spent on capital investment than in the past. Our recent record for cleaning up bathing waters is a good one—two thirds of the 348 waters in England, Northern Ireland and Wales now meet EEC standards compared with only half in 1986.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised the question of compulsory purchase. Recently, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I answered a question from my hon. Friend and I was pleased to hear his views tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued a consultation paper, but my right hon. Friend is right to stress that, where compulsory purchase is required, compensation must be fair, must be seen to be fair and there should be no undue delay.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment about toxic waste. As the Prime Minister said to the House the other day, many of the issues raised in the report are already being dealt with. Consultation is near completion, legislation is being prepared and a detailed response to the report will be given by the Government in due course. He was also right to raise the question of Iran and I share his concern about the disturbing reports.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East wants a debate to urge people—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 ( Periodic Adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 23rd March, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th April and at its rising on Friday 28th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — The Arts

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. John Bowis: I am glad of this opportunity to celebrate the arts of this country and to apportion credit where credit is due—to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his team at the Office of Arts and Libraries and also to the many administrators in local government and in the arts centres for all that they do to make artistic achievements possible. I should also like to draw attention to the vitality of the arts in Britain and among British artists. In celebrating the arts, we should also look for ways in which to encourage them still further.
Last Saturday, as I was sitting in Southwark cathedral for the installation of our local archdeacon, I found myself considering this debate and how to frame it. I was sitting alongside the memorial to William Shakespeare. Perhaps that was an omen, as I believe that it sums up the theme of my debate—the past excellence of our arts and the ways in which we can emulate that. Looking around that cathedral—not just at the Shakespeare and Chaucer windows, but at the fine architecture—my awareness of that excellence was heightened, and as I listened to the anthem by Thomas Tallis I realised that the ceremony was a celebration of our artistic excellence.
On Saturday afternoon I went with my 11-year-old son to the Festival Hall to attend one of the Ernest Read children's concerts. My son was performing with his school choir as part of that concert, which to me was as much a symbol of our debate on the arts as the excellence of the cathedral and its service. Those concerts introduce young children and their families to the best of British musical performance and encourage them to participate. I stress the importance of participation as well as of understanding and observing the arts. In my own childhood I recall being introduced to music by being persuaded to take up the piano at an early age. I later took up the clarinet. Then, finding that one could get the maximum enjoyment with the minimum effort by changing instruments, I switched to the double bass. That enabled me to get into the school orchestra, so I got to know a lot of music without quite so much rehearsal and practice time as the clarinet would have required. I then discovered that the double bass was a somewhat unwieldy instrument to play in a military band, so I took up the tuba. Such was my introduction to music.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is a real one-man band.

Mr. Bowis: I look forward to hearing the percussion from the Labour Benches a little later.
Alongside my introduction to music I was persuaded to take part in school performances—anything from Lear to A. P. Herbert. I rendered a performance—if that is the right term—of the Mikado and did something to Gilbert and Sullivan. I am not sure what I did, but shortly afterwards D'Oyly Carte closed down. All this shows that from a young age one can participate in the arts. It also shows that if one takes up the tuba and indulges in a little thespianism one can end up on the Back Benches of the House of Commons, but if one does it will be the last that one sees of the pleasures of the stage and the concert hall.
For about 12 years one of my indulgences was being a performer in the Blue Review. Very often I trod the boards under the directorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). I well remember on one occasion before I came here being taught of the perils of the whipping system and how the Whips did not encourage hon. Members to depart from this place to enjoy the arts. I will put on record one version of my hon. Friend's composition, although I hasten to add that I do not intend to sing it:

"There are many, many ways to keep on top.
When they say 'go' we often have to say 'stop'.
At night they all seek leave to see the opera.
To stay, we say, would be more right and properer. 
We get some argy-bargy. 
If they miss their Pagliacci; 
But they stay in place
Or else they face
The chop!" 

I have learnt from bitter experience that this place limits our ability to get out and enjoy the arts as we might like. However, we can play a part in encouraging others to discover the arts. We should encourage people to set out on a lifetime of discovery of the arts.
That voyage of discovery is not just a discovery of the enjoyment of the arts—although that is important. There are many ways in which the arts contribute to society. When I was chairman of an education committee, we endeavoured to bring the arts into education, not just by teaching pupils to appreciate music and drama but by encouraging drama, music and painting as part of the teaching of other subjects to bring history, geography, language and science to life in a way that the drier forms of teaching cannot.
There is a great role for the arts in what may broadly be called enforced leisure, which may be due to sickness, unemployment or imprisonment. Throughout those periods of enforced confinement, the arts can play an enormously important part in helping people to find self-confidence and self-awareness and to regain their self-respect. The arts also play a part at work. We know the need for good designers and the good use of language at work. The arts also have a role to play in public life, in ensuring that we in public life bring artistic qualities to bear when making judgments and decisions as to how to improve the environment.
The social benefits from the arts are legion. The basic facts against which this debate takes place are that 251 million people attend arts events, of whom 49 million attend theatres and concerts, 70 million attend cinemas, 73 million visit museums and galleries—it is not just west end theatres but houses outside London and even local arts

centres—and 10 million people attend concerts, of whom 2·5 million attend symphony concerts, 2·2 million attend chamber music concerts and 5·7 million attend rock and pop concerts. Specialist, local and independent museums attract vast numbers of people. Those figures show the vitality of the arts, and the industry directly employs 200,000 people.
The arts also provide therapeutic benefits—the social good that comes from the arts for the individual and the community. Some years ago, I went to Greenwich for the introduction of a community arts project on a difficult estate where there was much vandalism. By bringing in a community arts team and encouraging the people of the estate to come together to create a wall painting, the project brought a feeling of pride in the estate which had not existed before. It also encouraged a determination to protect the estate from outside vandalism and produced a new feeling of self-awareness and self-confidence in the people living there. That example could be repeated throughout the country.
The person who finds that he or she can create through the arts rarely becomes a vandal, graffiti merchant or litter lout. People who find that they share a common interest in the arts are rarely social misfits but instead join others to promote that interest. People in prison can find a new purpose in life through the arts. All too often we are forced to say what a pity it was that such people were not introduced to the arts before they got into trouble because they might have been prevented from ending up in that position. It is much better if we can encourage a person to become interested in the arts at the ground floor level of life so that the arts become a basic part of his or her make-up.
The arts can provide an integral safety net so that when we face tough times we can fall back on our knowledge, understanding and love of the arts to help us through. The arts are not a luxury but a necessity, an essential ingredient in the life of the individual and the nation. The state and the taxpayer should therefore never opt out of supporting the arts. The Government and the state have a role as a patron. That has always been so and it always will be so. Patronage cannot come out of the clouds—the Government must play a part because of the costs and implications involved.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to this point. All that he has said so far has been acceptable—anyone who does not encourage the arts is foolish—but having come to the question of supportive systems for the arts, is he satisfied that the Government have put enough into the arts? Should we appeal to the Government to put more into the arts? What are his views on the fact that some hon. Members believe that we should have more voluntary supportive systems for the arts?

Mr. Bowis: The brief answer is no—we shall never be satisfied that there is enough support for the arts. However, the Government and particularly my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts have gone a long way to increasing that support and the confidence with which we can plan future support. The plural nature of funding and work to encourage other sources of funding is equally important, but we can never be satisfied that there is enough funding. There will always be new developments in the arts to be considered and funded.

Mr. David Martin: The Government's expenditure programme on the arts has increased by 33 per cent. in real terms since they came to office in 1979, so they have certainly made a contribution.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is a highly questionable statistic.

Mr. Bowis: I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) that there has been a substantial and significant increase in the arts funding. Even more important so that people can plan ahead we have three-year funding, which has been rolled forward for the fourth year. As well as the role of patron, the state also has a role as the guardian of standards. If the Government and Parliament did not play a role in encouraging high standards in the arts but opted out completely, we should have a mixture of the tawdry and the pedestrian. That is all that the market alone would produce. The market has an important role to play, but it needs guidance from Parliament and Government.
The state must encourage the innovator with talent, because too often the innovator is left behind by private sponsorship, so support must be given from the public sector. In a sense the message that we should give is similar to that which we give to new, young exporters—that we shall provide some export guarantee back-up for them. The state has a role to play as educator—through schools, youth services and continuing education.
The Government's role should be the pursuit of excellence, and to provide cash support for that which is of top quality. The Government should promote the spread of excellence in both central and regional development. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to encourage regional development. That applies as much to London, which is far more than just the west end, as to areas outside London. What happens in the boroughs is crucial to the development and health of the arts. Support for touring companies and performers is important, as is support for taking things out of the cellars and drawers and putting them on show, around the country and abroad, to advertise the quality that this country possesses.

Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the boroughs, and I presume that he was referring to local authority support for the arts generally. Is he aware that some of the regional opera companies have expressed concern that clause 28 of the Local Government and Housing Bill will restrict grants for economic development, and that grants for regional opera companies and other arts organisations may be caught by it? If that is so, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a wholly undesirable development?

Mr. Bowis: If that presents an obstacle to good arts funding, we should certainly examine it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something about it. It also underlines the need to scrutinise Arts Council funding as well as local government funding. The one can help to balance the other.

Mr. Greenway: This has been one of the great successes of "The Glory of the Garden". For a short time I was governor of the Theatre Royal in York and we implemented "The Glory of the Garden" policy to great effect by persuading local authorities to make their contribution.

Mr. Bowis: I accept that point, particularly for regions outside London, although the glory of London occasionally leaves something to be desired.
Continuing to summarise the Government's role, I believe that the Government must encourage the crucial participation to which I referred earlier and tell people to try doing things, not just to sit still. That message must go out to people of all ages. The Government must also provide incentives for plural funding so that new funding opportunities are created and total resources for the arts increased.
Besides what the Government can give the arts we should highlight what they can receive from them. We should put grants into perspective by reminding ourselves of the 200,000 jobs involved and the 250 million people who attend, and of the £30 million that is estimated to come from the arts through local rates. VAT on the arts now contributes £55 million, compared with £35 milli on in 1983, and the arts earn about £1,500 million directly and indirectly from overseas earnings and from overseas visitors to this country. In addition to all this, the education, industry and social fabric of our nation benefit unquantifiably from the arts.
The Government can be proud of their achievements. My hon. Friends have referred to some of those achievements and I shall highlight a few others, particularly the work of the British Council to which increased funding has been given. The British Council and our embassies, high commissions and consulates do good work abroad. I went to a detention centre in South Africa for young men who had got into trouble in Soweto and found to my surprise that funding from Britain had resulted in English literature being learned there. I went in unannounced, only to discover that they were reading "Macbeth" with evident enjoyment—a plus for British literature as well as for the work done for people in need.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a commendable body of people. Those of us who have seen the British Council at work can confirm the amount of personal time, expertise and professionalism that its staff put into their work, for the benefit of the people of the countries that they serve. However, whenever I meet British Council staff, as I do fairly regularly, they complain that they have suffered cuts and have had to undo the damage done by those cuts through extra effort and raising revenue themselves. I commend what the Government are doing, but I make a plea to them to raise the expenditure limits in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's submission.

Mr. Bowis: I have nothing against people raising additional money from elsewhere. I, too, have spoken to the British Council recently and I understand that it received a substantial increase in funding this year, so perhaps the pleas of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in all parts of the House have been heard. The British Council's work can therefore continue with confidence.
I also want to highlight the success of the Government's policy of helping inner-city regeneration. I commend the work done with other Departments which led to the British music industry sponsoring the city college for the technology of the arts. I commend the record number of museums that are opening and the record attendance figures, which are soaring towards the 100 million mark—the figure has doubled during the Government's period


of office. Theatres that were closed for some years are reopening, which is good. A great deal of business sponsorship is being found, and the three-year funding is a healthy development. I plead with the Arts Council to feed it through. Sometimes the client bodies do not receive the three-year funding, at least not on the level commensurate with the Government's funding of the Arts Council.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away by his own rhetoric about museums and starts congratulating the Government on opening private, independent museums in which the Government are not involved, will he reflect on the attendance figures this year, about which the Minister has just replied in a parliamentary written answer? Attendance at the British museum, the Imperial War museum, the national gallery, the science museum, the Victoria and Albert museum and the Wallace collection has declined, and that is related to the fact that the Government have so underfunded the museums that they have to charge for admission, so attendance is falling catastrophically.

Mr. Bowis: Figures fluctuate. The figures for the national maritime museum show that attendance has risen over the years. The hon. Gentleman should examine the results of charging rather carefully. It often means that museums can open on days when they had hitherto been closed. That presents new opportunities for people to go and see them, so let us await future developments.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to seek means of additional support for, and to remove occasional obstacles to, the success of opera. Enormous strides are being made to bring opera to new audiences. I do not mean only "Aida" at Earl's Court or productions in docklands but the whole range of initiatives, outside and inside London. I commend Westminster council's work in taking over performances so as to provide cheap seats at the Coliseum for people who have not seen opera before. The record of the English National Opera is to be commended, too. It has done good work to improve receipts from the box office and from sponsorship. Over the past five years those receipts have risen by 72 per cent., and sponsorship by more than 140 per cent. Grants have risen by 16 per cent. and are increasing by 2 per cent. per year—nothing like the rate of inflation, or the 13 per cent. given to the Arts Council by the Government.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at the financing of bodies such as the ENO. The funding that used to come from Westminster council can no longer do so because of the new local government finance system. The triumvirate of the Office of the Arts and Libraries, Westminster council and the Arts Council needs to come together to resolve the problem.
Grant funding for the Royal Opera House—it is, after all, three companies—has fallen from 53 per cent. in 1985 to about 37 per cent. and is heading towards 34 per cent. One continually needs to assess the danger point for these establishments, because the switch from a balanced budget of public and private sponsorship to excessively private sponsorship can lead to a rather dull programme. At the New York Met, which is 90 per cent. privately sponsored, there is no new work at all and certainly nothing of the

quality of this year's Covent Garden programme. I sound a warning note that we should not let that balance get out of kilter.
Staying with the world of music, but moving across the river, I believe there is some good news coming on the south bank. I welcome the proposal to bring the private and public sectors together and Terry Farrell's designs to improve that concrete jungle. That is good news. It is also a good example. It will certainly improve the concert halls and the Hayward gallery. I would question whether we actually need to build a rehearsal hall more or less identical to the main Festival hall right alongside it. I understand from musicians that one either needs to have the actual hall available for the top conductor and top orchestra, or one can make do with the Henry Wood hall, Holy Trinity, which is available now, and perhaps that space could be better used for some other purpose—for example, a theatre of dance for London.
Also we need to encourage those who will take the decisions to address their minds to the need to have an orchestra in residence on the south bank. It has worked successfully at the Barbican with the London Symphony Orchestra. The royal philharmonic orchestra is now an ad hoc touring orchestra, and I would have thought the London philharmonic orchestra, either on its own or merged with the Philharmonia, if that is practical, could become the resident orchestra of the south bank and raise the quality of music there.
Turning to theatre, I am a great believer in the Institute of Contemporary Arts, and I am sad to see that a question mark still hangs over it. If one looks at the quality of that institution over the years, starting some 40 years ago with the young artists Bacon, Hepworth and Moore then coming through and being promoted as the face of modern art, one sees what they have done since to encourage not just the visual arts but also theatre and film, the theatre de complicite, DV8, the programme coming in now of novostroika from the Soviet Union with the Almanakh group of poet performers. These things are excellent examples of the encouraging of modern innovative art, and the continued partnership between the ICA and the Arts Council should be encouraged.
On the smaller theatre, I have referred before to pub theatre, with which I have had some involvement, and the need to look at licensing. These are too small to qualify as fully fledged theatres and tend to be lumped with clubs, thus needing 48-hour membership, which deters people from coming in. They have all sorts of difficulties, and now they are plagued by some London authorities, the latest one being Camden with the Hampstead theatre and the Viceroy. We need something like the initiative being taken by the London Association of Studio Theatres, which is drawing up a code of practice. If that code of practice could be adopted, by all local authorities but especially in London, we could remove that particular hindrance to the small theatre.
An even smaller theatre is the Theatry of Puppetry. Puppetry does not often get a mention in this place, but I will mention it because its national centre is in my constituency at the Battersea arts centre.

Mr. John Greenway: The place is full of them.

Mr. Bowis: I used the word "puppetry". On the whole, the puppets are not here today to participate.
There is a danger that this national, indeed, international, resource was overlooked in the changeover from ILEA to the local boroughs, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully to see that its interests are preserved.
I cannot pass by on today of all days, the eve of the Budget, without mentioning the danger to the nation's reading posed by the constant threat of VAT on the written word. I put in the plea, which I hope and am confident will be heard, that it would not really be helpful to the arts, the literary world or education in this country if a 15 per cent. tax, surcharge, penalty or whatever one likes to call it were imposed on the written word. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will join me in making that message very clear to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor. There is no legal requirement for it and it could only damage the education and indeed the economy of the country. I know from my own inner-city area how many people need to benefit from learning to take advantage of the economic opportunities which exist.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. He has just completed a quartet of important concerns, referring to the Royal Opera House, the theatre and the written word. He referred to the amount of money going to the Royal Opera House, which has dropped from over 50 per cent. to 33 per cent. He will recollect that his hon. Friend indicated following my first intervention that there had been a Government improvement in funding of 33 per cent., so, with the shortfalls to which the hon. Member has referred and the increases to which his hon. Friend has referred, does this not suggest an organisational problem and that the imbalances to which' he referred might arise from conflicts within the art world, the power of certain personalities and the institutionalisation of the art forms that he has described?

Mr. Bowis: I shall not go into personalities, but a danger of imbalance is implied. It does not conflict with what my hon. Friend was saying because, of course, total figures can go up. I was referring to the percentage of the total and the need to keep the balance right. It will still be possible for the overall figures to increase, as I hope will be the case.
Finally, there is the question of libraries. I went to the launching of the library campaign and I welcomed it as such because it is right that people should be made more aware of their libraries and should put greater pressure on local authorities to keep them as a high priority in local government spending. Although the Library Association has it right, the library campaign is fighting a campaign which relates to the position before my right hon. Friend made his announcement on the Green Paper consultation.
Having looked at their literature, which refers to 165 library service points closing down, one knows that the actual figure has gone up from 14,000 to 18,000, so that is misleading. Reference is made to a 13 per cent. fall in the number of books, but one knows that there has been no fall. There is reference to library book stocks falling by 4 per cent., but the actual stocks have increased from 110 million to 116 million, so that, too, is misleading. There is reference to a cut of more than 1,000 jobs, when one knows that staffing is up to the highest level for 10 years. That, too, is misleading.
One sees reference to the Government forcing libraries to make people pay when one knows that the Government have actually introduced legislation prohibiting local authorities from charging for lending books but permitting those who wish to bring in some additional income from other sources. All that is a pity, because it takes attention away from what should be a good campaign to look for ways of encouraging more people to make better use of their libraries and to put greater pressure on authorities to spend more on them.
To summarise, Bishop Creighton said that the one real object of education is to leave a man continually asking questions. I believe that the object of the arts is to enable men to seek answers to those questions within a framework of aesthetic and cultural understanding. I believe that the arts bring an awareness of what is beautiful and hence a determination to avoid and reject what is ugly. I believe that the arts give individuals, communities and nations an identity and self-confidence. I believe that the arts demand of Governments a light and sensitive touch which seeks to nurture without seeking to mould. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we have the environment in trust for future generations. In the same way, we have the artistic heritage in trust for future generations. I hope that future generations will look back on our stewardship and say that we enhanced the artistic life of this country.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I came into the Chamber—it seems only a few moments ago—to find that for the first time in my experience of 20 years in this place, special time had been given to the arts. That is not to say that the arts have not been mentioned before, because nothing new happens in the House of Commons. Perhaps I missed other debates on the arts.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has raised a subject which touches the very pulse of human personality in our society. The search for the enhancement of human dignity and our latent talents begins with a child's education. The teacher pursues those talents. The essence of teaching is not to instruct, but to ask questions and see how best the great discovery of seeking answers can generate a child's activity. When I was a teacher I used to have a saying that there is success in every child if only we can find it. That is the teacher's function.
The hon. Member for Battersea has done a service for the House by considering a broader brush of the world of the arts. He has referred to opera houses, the written word and the theatre. I cannot recall whether he mentioned the film industry. If he did not, that may have been an oversight, but we must consider that very important topic.
The very seedcorn of dealing with the larger parameters of the arts begins in our schools. When I talk to teachers I find that they are very worried about budgeting in schools. That worry is pressing on teachers to such an extent that we must listen to them. My teachers are not well paid for their excellent work. They have to take money from their own pockets to meet the expenditure shortfalls and so pay for the necessary equipment and instruments to present wider artistic opportunities to their children.
The arts are the great regenerative force within the educational process. The arts are fundamentally useful even to the child pursuing a career in civil engineering.


They are also fundamentally useful to budding economists. If a child entered that profession, he would be wonderfully 100 per cent. correct because no economist agrees with another and each believes that he is right.
Apart from that degree of cynicism, the Government are not sustaining the very foundations of the art world which are present in our schools. Geniuses like Attenborough have brought this country a remarkable reputation for producing films which attract thousands of people outside this country. Those films provide inspiration, which is part of the experience of art, to go out and try to emulate that genius in some other form within an individual's own abilities.
I went to see a film directed by Attenborough not very long ago. I came away feeling a little proud of the fact that I had learnt something about India. Before then I had read some of the more diverse views and the historical distortions in the British press which were responses to the power struggles of the time and which failed fundamentally to give us the true picture of what happened in parts of the Commonwealth and before that in the British empire.
There are real truths in film art. I am only a lay person and I am limited in the language referred to by the hon. Member for Battersea. Perhaps I could do better in the written word. However, the Government must be mindful to promote and encourage the arts and be acquiescent in areas like the film industry where we must do more. There is genius trying to gain expression in this country. As I said about children, there is success in everyone if only we can find it.
I believe that one of the great art forms is conversation between human beings. People may say that that is not an art form, but it is. When I listen to people who unfortunately are not well off, who are exceptionally poor, who cannot really spend much time thinking about anything else but how to make ends meet, I discover that their conversations are limited, prejudicial, restricted and unhappy. We need money to solve that problem. There is a great deal of latent talent imprisoned because of poverty and simply because people's houses are cold. Who the hell can read a book in a cold house?
All human experience is art. The enhancement of art's separate parts will never reach the desired heights if we neglect what makes the human emotions tick and if we neglect what makes people move and do things. Ambition is good enough for many people, but great ambitions have been buried because people have not had the opportunity in society to open out and flower.
The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the theatre. It is a long time since I had the chance to go to the theatre because this House is a bit of a crazy place. Of course we like to be here, but 100 per cent. of my time is interesting only to me. I love this place and I want to be in it. I do not have time to go out, so I am ignorant about the theatre. When I was a young boy I used to write one-act plays; I did not get much further because one must accept one's own mediocrity. Nevertheless, I know that the theatre is important for the players, the playwrights and those who make profits from it. I would not deny people the right to make profits, because that is an important element of the

industry. I do not deny that the theatre is important, and if it is not supported properly, it will wither away in the same way as the film industry.

Mr Bowis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although support for the arts has been apparent in respect of teaching drama and English literature, it has not until now been in evidence in respect of music and the arts, which for the first time have entered the national curriculum? Does the hon. Gentleman celebrate with me that step forward?

Mr. Leadbetter: Yes: the hon. Gentleman and I are at one. My comments are meant as an attack on the institutionalisation of our systems. What frightens me to death is the abrasiveness of the Government, who have gained power partly by telling people that they will widen choice and freedom of expression—but instead, we have seen 10 years of interventionism of the worst possible kind.
This is no longer a namby-pamby debate about percentages and extra funding: it is a debate about attitudes. When we leave the Chamber after this three-hour debate, will we say to ourselves, "That was a good debate—now let us us have our dinner," or will we follow it up by insisting that this and any future Government will give proper attention not only to finance but to the other great armies of encouragement that can expand and promote the whole world of art, so that people may experience the joy and satisfaction of learning, of being responsive to the talents of others, and of living in the world of imagination? Simply enjoying the company of creative people is itself a great part of art.
We must embrace the comments of the hon. Member for Battersea and become ambassadors for the arts in our own constituencies, not just prattle statistics. I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members are conscious of a new trend, whereby the Prime Minister, and senior, junior and aspirant Ministers visit constituencies and instead of reading their prepared Whitehall briefs, as was the tradition, make announcements of moneys that will be dolloped here and there. There are agencies all over the country dealing with unemployment, and they are given a few thousand pounds here and there. However, I can tell the electorate that the Government are not really handing out any money. There are great schemes afoot, all associated with the arts.
A few days ago, in the northern region, the Government were handing out money. I said to one colleague, "It is not fair." We have been promised support for a great project. I am told that the principles involved will be pleased to provide donations for Hartlepool arts school and for its college of further education. They will make those donations because they are decent people, but they know that if the project does not develop, the Government will not give the millions of pounds that they have promised, and a stopper will be put on it.
I return to the fundamental heads of art that lay people such as myself understand: drama, film, libraries and museums. I find in every quarter that the people concerned with their management complain that they lack resources. That appears to be the truth. I am not in a mood to question the claim that there has been 33 per cent. extra funding, or that the Royal Opera's funding has not been reduced from 50 per cent. to 34 per cent. However, I find it strange that honest, decent and highly professional people in opera and the theatre should complain if there


has been increased funding. They complain because of the lack of adequate funding to keep pace with the demands made on the particular head of art with which they are concerned.
I have not prepared any figures, and one must be amiable and not challenge the claims of right hon. and hon. Members. Nevertheless, there is a three-line Whip, so that any right hon. or hon. Member who speaks in tonight's arts debate must appear to be at one with all the others. Not a single right hon. or hon. Member wants any harm done to the arts. Countrywide, we all want to improve the system so that we shall get the best from the arts. There is unanimity on that point. If there is that unanimity, we must not be afraid of acknowleging that in some sectors of the arts—such as the film industry—we must listen to the people who run them, and accept that they are the professionals and are not wasting our time by bleating about nothing. In other words, just for once will the Government, instead of talking, listen?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), to whom we all enjoy listening, will forgive me if I do not follow him through all the highways and byways that he described with such precision. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) not only on his good fortune in the ballot but on choosing the subject that he did. His speech was as thoughtful, perceptive and elegantly phrased as I have hard for a long time. I cannot promise to follow him in his eloquence or precision, because I did not know until six o'clock that this debate was to take place. For the past week I was in America, in the company of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West ( Mr. Banks), and learned only this evening of the debate—with mixed feelings, I admit, because I had to withdraw from a rather splendid publishing party.
I also congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that if I congratulate a Minister I really mean it. My right hon. Friend has held his present post for longer than any of his predecessors, and has held it with an amiable distinction that is thoroughly admirable. There are few Ministers in any Government of whom it can be said, "He has made no enemies." My right hon. Friend has had opponents from time to time—people who have disagreed with his emphasis on this or that—but he has made no enemies in the arts world.
I must be frank. When my right hon. Friend became Minister for the Arts there was some scepticism about his appointment, because he had not been publicly identified with the arts before. He quickly showed himself, however, to be the best kind of Minister, a ready listener and a quick learner anxious to master his subject as well as to know his brief—for there is a real difference between the two.
My right hon. Friend has travelled around the country. His policy has been that of the open door; he has never refused to see anyone with a legitimate interest to advance. He has made countless friends and, as I have said, no enemies.

Mr. Tony Banks: He should be canonised.

Mr. Cormack: Not yet; that will come later.
My right hon. Friend's tenure has been very distinguished. Moreover, although the present

Government's actions have not always earned my unqualified approbation, our arts record has been good. We need look only at the list of our achievements: the creation of the National Heritage Memorial Fund—a particular interest of mine, as my right hon. Friend knows—the Historic Building and Monuments Commission, now more generally known as English Heritage. and the building and opening of the Tate in the north. I could name many more such achievements which I am sure will prove lasting.
Funding, after one or two leaner years, has been nurtured by my right hon. Friend. I entirely support the concept of plurality, but I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea point to the dangers that can be created by too much sponsorship or too much of any kind of individual funding. Too much sponsorship can lead to a lack of initiative and adventure; too much state funding, on the other hand, can lead to a stultifying of creative endeavour because people feel that they must respond to a particular mood or desire.
That does not mean, however, that I agree with all that the Government have done, even in this regard. I was closely involved in the Select Committee report, published as long ago as 1981. We laboured long with that report, taking evidence in many places and from many people—including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whom I hope will have the good fortune to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman gave the Committee some excellent evidence, and we began a friendship that I hope will last while we are both in the House of Commons—which I hope will be a long time for both of us.
The Government did not respond to that important report with the alacrity and comprehensiveness that I should have liked. Many of its recommendations still have not been implemented, although they could and should be. There is certainly no cause for complacency. That is another of the endearing characteristics of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He is not a complacent man.
Despite our lobbying year after year, we still have VAT on repairs to listed buildings. As our heritage is a particular interest of mine, I hope that tomorrow when the Chancellor stands at the Dispatch Box he will be able to excite an extra-fervent cheer from me by announcing a move in the right direction.
Much remains to be done, and my hon. Friend was right to say in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Hartlepool that we should never be satisfied. A particular cause for concern, if not dissatisfaction, is the crisis—I use the word deliberately—surrounding one of our greatest national institutions, the Victoria and Albert museum. I do not wish to castigate or pour scorn on any individual, because I believe that that achieves little other than making people angry and resentful, and I should like to see peace break out. It must be acknowledged, however, that the Victoria and Albert museum, which houses one of the greatest collections of collections and is one of the glories of the museum world, is in a sad and sorry state.
My point is not that some of the museum's collections have not seen the light of day for many a long year or that parts of the fabric are in a dangerous condition, although I know both to be true. I am referring to the crisis that has developed in relations between the director and trustees on the one hand and the staff—especially senior staff—on the


other. I do not seek to apportion blame. I do not wish to impugn anyone's integrity, or to accuse anyone of acting from base motives.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is all the fun gone.

Mr. Cormack: The trouble is that we have reached a stage at which we must put the fun aside and try to solve the problem. It will not help to solve it if we give vent to spleen in the Chamber tonight, amusing as it may be—and I occasionally enjoy jousting in invective with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
I have received numerous letters—marked "confidential", so I should not dream of naming the authors—from people serving in the V and A who feel deeply disturbed. They are not troublemakers but people who have devoted years, in some cases decades, of their lives to scholarship and to that institution in particular. I am not referring to the eight who have reluctantly accepted redundancy. I refer to others who are still there and are still anxious that the museum should succeed; who are concerned that visitor figures have plunged from 2 million to 1 million over a relatively short time; who recognise that there is indeed a managerial problem, and that the time has come when many solutions that might not have been contemplated a few years ago will have to be contemplated. They are not narrow-minded bigots, nor do they refuse to move with the times. They are genuinely troubled servants of a great institution.
Those people are troubled, not because someone has proposed a radical solution to their difficulties, but because of the manner in which that solution has been proposed. I hope that nothing that I say this evening will make the position worse, because I hope to do exactly the opposite. I shall make no comment on the trustees, many of whom I know and all whom I know I like and respect. I believe the chairman to be a man of great distinction who has shown—for example, in the selfless service that he has given the Royal Opera House for many years—that his heart is in the right place. Let me nevertheless say to him and to his fellow trustees that, whether they have got the solution right or wrong, they have certainly got the methods wrong.
There has been a lack of consideration—or apparent consideration—a lack of sensitivity and, certainly, a lack of consultation. A group of people, many of whom have given years, if not their whole working lives, to the institution, feel that their expertise has been set at naught, their experience ignored, their contribution discounted and a theoretical solution imposed on them without any chance to discuss it. That is how they see it. As hon. Members know, appearances and how things are perceived are terribly important. It is sometimes said that perceptions are more important than realities in politics, and we all have to bear that in mind.
I am not accusing Lord Armstrong or his trustees of anything. I am not suggesting that they have anything other than the future of the museum close to their hearts. I am not suggesting that they are doing anything other than what they consider to be right. But I am telling them as gently and as firmly as I can that their approach is wrong.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has always demonstrated a genuine belief in the arms length

principle. He has always taken the line that one appoints trustees and lets them get on with the job, that the trustees appoint a director and let him get on with the job and that it is important that the relationship between the trustees and the director should be right. So far, so good—I do not quarrel with that—but an even more important ingredient for a successful institution is that staff should have confidence in the director and the trustees. The staff of the Victoria and Albert museum, or a great many of them, do not have confidence in their director or the trustees. It may be due to misunderstandings, misinterpretations or over-hasty reactions—I am certainly not suggesting that all is right on the one side and all wrong on the other—but the staff do not have that confidence and we would be doing them, the nation, and one of its greatest institutions a disservice if we pretended otherwise.
There comes a time when the Minister has a role to play. I know that my right hon. Friend would be reluctant to acknowledge that. If I were in his position—and I sometimes wish that I were—I should have an equal reluctance, so I do not criticise him. But when a crisis of confidence has reached such proportions, someone has to step in, and the obvious person is the Minister. At the very least he should try to initiate some proper discussions conducted with equal respect on each side. The trustees, or a group of them, and the senior employees, or a group of them, should sit down together and discuss where they are going with the Victoria and Albert.
It is important that those who want to make far-reaching changes explain precisely how and why, and answer and argue, in a way that we seek to answer and argue when debate in the House is at its best. It is important that the trustees listen most carefully to the misgivings—they may be misapprehensions—of those over whom they have been set in trust. The Minister must intervene in the gentlest way to get that process going, as that is absolutely essential if the problem is to be resolved. I hope that he will.
I shall not be so presumptiously pompous as to suggest precisely how he should do that, as every Minister has his own approach. My right hon. Friend has shown that he is good at winning people's trust and confidence. He has made a lot of friends and he has no enemies, and he knows many of the people concerned. My suggestion is not a prelude to the sacking of the director. I knew the last director of the Victoria and Albert, Sir Roy Strong, very well indeed. I do not know the present director. I have met her but I have never had a proper conversation with her, so I make no comment about her competence. But if the museum is to take its rightful place in the artistic life of the nation in future, as it has in the past, the director has to enjoy the confidence of the staff, which she does not at the moment.
I am told that the director has not gone around from department to department and discussed in detail how they are run. If that is so, and I hope that she will forgive me for saying so, she has been mistaken, but mistakes can be rectified and the situation is not beyond recall. The talks and correspondence that I have had make it plain that all those people want is for the institution to flourish in future, as it has done in the past. They recognise that there are difficulties, and, as all-party Committees of this House have recognised, they see that things have to be put right. It is not a perfectly run institution and all the objects within it have not been properly displayed or, in some


cases, conserved. Some things have to be changed, and tighter management may well be needed. But nothing can be achieved until confidence has been restored.
My right hon. Friend did not have a good reputation in the Foreign Office for nothing. I hope that he will use his considerable diplomatic abilities to get the people who matter together and to tell them that the stakes are far too high to allow personal vendettas or petty squabbles to ruin the future of a great institution. The trustees, the director and the staff all have roles to play and they should play them together. If, as a result of tonight's debate, so splendidly initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, there is the beginning of a solution at the Victoria and Albert, we shall not have forgone our parties and our suppers in vain.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I listened with great interest to the paean of praise that he delivered to the Minister, although a little later he let slip that he would like to be in his place. I think that he would make a very good Minister in a Conservative Government, although he is not always certain that he is wholly with his own party, and for that reason we like him even more. I hope that I do not do him a disservice in urging his appointment on his colleagues, any more than he did for me in revealing to a startled world that we were together last week in the United States of America.
I have one major disappointment I will announce immediately and that is the debate will not be graced by the presence of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) who brings a certain muscular approach to the arts that we find at least amusing, and from time to time he even stumbles on a grain of truth. But we know that his contribution to the arts in Britain resembles that of the Luftwaffe to town planning.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on initiating the debate. Indeed, I was impressed by his range of talents. I am surprised that he bothered to come into politics. He obviously could have pursued a profitable and, who knows, a more rewarding career elsewhere. Perhaps he too aspires to sitting on the Front Bench as Arts Minister. There are quite a few on the Government Benches, and one or two on the Opposition Benches, who would like to be considered if a short list were to be drawn up.
The hon. Member for Battersea commented on the fact that the Prime Minister has been "greened" recently. His one mistake was to bring her into any consideration of artistic matters. We all know that she is into re-reading Freddie Forsyth and going to "The Mousetrap". I suppose that that is a start, but she has a long way to go before she can genuinely claim to be one of the muses—[Interruption.] I am afraid that good taste makes it impossible for me to answer that question.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Battersea's kids go to the Ernest Read children's concerts at the Royal Festival hall. I acquired what taste I have in musical appreciation by going to the Robert Mayer concerts in the Central hall and then in the Royal Festival hall. I want to say how deeply grateful I am to the Inner London education authority for all the benefits that it gave me through opportunities to go to concerts, plays and

other artistic events. I hope that the Minister and some of his colleagues realise what great damage they have done to the arts and to the artistic education of young children by destroying ILEA.
The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned the Royal Festival hall. I hope that he goes over and enjoys the open foyer policy that was pioneered by the Greater London council when I chaired the arts committee. There was an empty space, much like the empty space in Westminster hall that I complained about earlier this afternoon. It is criminal to have so much empty space when so many young artists—dancers, sculptors or painters—would like to use that space to display their talents to an appreciative world.
I noticed that during the day the Royal Festival hall was used just by people, mostly from Shell middle management, who came to a rather over-priced restaurant. The rest of the place was empty. I thought that the best thing to do was to turn that space to use. It was a great move by the GLC to open up the Royal Festival hall, with 25,000 people a week coming in at lunchtime to enjoy the free music and the various exhibitions, and perhaps overcoming the fear of the threshold that many people have when they view great artistic buildings.
The sordid bit that I leave to the end is that it was good value for the ratepayers of London because it made money. The GLC did not turn away from that, because it meant that not only were we involving more people in the arts, but we were providing more funds for other artistic activities in the capital. I am delighted that the South Bank board retained the open foyer policy of the Royal Festival hall that it inherited.
I am alarmed and concerned at the proposals that are emerging from Mr. Stuart Lipton and Mr. Terry Farrell for the south bank. I am sure that Mr. Lipton is altruistic and that his only concern is the welfare of the arts in London, but more cynical Members might suggest that he wants a return on the £200 million of investment that he intends to put into the south bank. I am worried about that because for such investment he will require a commercial return and commercial activity that could grate against what has been achieved so far.
I do not believe that such an important development should be something upon which the Minister says nothing. I am ready to give way to the Minister at any time. The matter is too significant to be left in the hands of a non-elected body—the South Bank board—account-able to no one save the Arts Council and therefore himself. Certainly, it is not accountable to the people of London, or to the people of Lambeth or Southwark who live in the immediate vicinity. That sort of development should be left to private developers, looking for a return on capital, and to a non-elected body.
That the Minister says nothing about it is not right. It could be argued that it is the cultural centre not only of the capital but of the whole country. That being so, the Minister should intervene and at least let us know exactly what he intends to do. He does not want to intervene. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the next Arts Minister, wants to intervene. No, he does not.

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend had his opportunity and he blew it.

Mr. Bowis: Let me not come between the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and his Front Bench. Am I not right in saying that just a moment ago the hon. Gentleman was praising the perspicacity and perceptiveness of the South Bank board for what it has done in the open spaces in the Royal Festival hall? Surely that is the board that will have the final say in what goes into the new development. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it proposes to extend the artistic provision in that area and on those draughty concrete walkways where, for 35 years in the public sector, nothing happened?

Mr. Banks: The South Bank board retained the open foyer policy because it would have been calamitous and unacceptable if it had done anything else. Of course, the policy was showing a good return as well. I do not say that I have only praise for the South Bank board because what used to be the literary centre set up by the Greater London council in the restaurant to which I referred has now been turned back into a restaurant. So I will not be unqualified in what I say about the South Bank board.
I am concerned about the development that has been proposed. I want genuine public consultation about the scheme. I think that in London we have a right to demand that. Indeed, the House has a right to demand it on behalf of the country as a whole. I do not want to see Disneyland on the south bank. I know that the gentlemen concerned in the new enterprise have to make a return on capital. The South Bank board might not want the scheme but it will have little choice unless the Government are prepared to put up funds through the Arts Council to provide some of the things which the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned, such as covering up those appalling walkways. I want to make sure that decisions are not taken behind closed doors by the South Bank board, with no public involvement and no press or public allowed in to those meetings. I do not want it all to be done cosily by the South Bank board, with us having no influence at all.
There is a shopping mall element in the proposals. Probably we will have hamburger stands and sock shops. I do not want those. If I did, I could go to Victoria station. That is not the way to use the South Bank. When I chaired the GLC arts committee I put forward proposals for covering the walkways. If this wretched Government had not abolished the GLC in 1986, against the wishes not only of myself—I agree that I was biased—but of a majority of Londoners, we would have had schemes to cover the walkways. We would not have had McDonald's and sock shops but something that was compatible with the south bank as a centre for the arts in London. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what thoughts he has had so far about the proposals for the south bank.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Battersea talking about the economic benefits of the arts and saying that they were not a luxury but a necessity. He would not have found favour with his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington or with other hon. Members who are not here, I am relieved to say, although they might have learnt a few things if they had been. Ministers need to accept that we are talking about a cultural industry and not about something arty-farty, a bit of icing on the cake. We are talking about something that makes a genuine and economic contribution to the fabric of society. Therefore, I do not look on this as a subsidy for the arts. Government funding is an investment in the arts. I can think of few finer forms of public investment than investment in the arts. If

that approach is taken, I can only say that I do not share the feelings of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South who had such great praise for the Minister. The Minister has done better than some of his predecessors, but that was not very difficult.
Looking at the amount of money that the Government have put into the arts, I challenge the figure that the Minister throws out from time to time—33 per cent. in real terms. When one starts to disaggregate it, it does not look like that at all. Taking into account the money that the Government took away when they abolished the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, as well as investment in the British Library, one gets round to a far more modest figure in terms of the arts—certainly the performing arts—in this country.
The Policy Studies Institute has just announced in a report—I do not think that the report has yet been published—that between 1983 and 1988 it was estimated that the growth, in real terms, in arts expenditure was 1 per cent. a year. I am one of those people who would be quite happy to submit these various statistical claims to some arbitrating body so that we might know the truth. We have seen the Government manipulate so many sets of statistics so often that the Minister can hardly be surprised if we find it very difficult to believe everything that he says.
On the rolling programme basis for arts funding, I welcome the idea of providing a degree of certainty. The certainty that the arts seem to have been given here is the certainty that they will lose money next year. As I understand it, we are talking about an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. in the Arts Council's budget for next year. With inflation at 6·5 per cent.—

Mr. Fisher: It is 7 per cent.

Mr. Banks: Very well—7 per cent., and rising.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seven and a half per cent."] Seven and a half per cent.: it is rising so fast that I can scarcely keep up with it. What we are talking about, therefore, is a cut in real terms. The Minister should bear that in mind when next he comes to the Dispatch Box to talk about what a wonderful job the Government have done for the arts in this country.

Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend keeps calling it a rolling programme. It is not really a rolling programme but a three-year programme. A rolling programme is one in which, each year, thought is given to what will be happening three years ahead, with minimum and maximum expansion percentages.

Mr. Banks: It is rolling rather like a steamroller, and it is going backwards downhill. It is something like that—it is all in there somewhere. Pick the bones out of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Someone today drew my attention to a figure concerning the Northern Ireland Office. Apparently, it has increased arts expenditure by 21 per cent.

Mr. Fisher: That is right.

Mr. Banks: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, who clearly has the expertise to enable him to switch sides and give us the facts. I hasten to add that we could all switch sides with him.
That increase seems remarkable. I welcome it, of course, but I should like to know the reason behind it. Surely the Minister for the Arts must be very envious of


the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If such a large increase is felt to be necessary in Northern Ireland, why not in the rest of the country?
I want to mention something else that I saw in The Times today. Tomorrow is Budget day, and there is just a possibility that the Chancellor will talk more about tax concessions—who knows?—for the arts. A report—again, one yet to be published—quoted in The Times this morning, says:
Tax concessions on funding for the arts introduced in the 1986 Budget have been a flop.
The changes which took effect from April 1987 were designed to boost company-giving, to introduce payroll-giving and higher rate relief on covenants for individuals.
A draft of the report by the management consultants Touche Ross showed that incentives have not been enough … A particular failure has been gifts from individuals. Response to payroll-giving has been negligible—of the 91 organisations which responded to inquiries, six had introduced the scheme and only one still operated it.
Of course, the fact is that it has been a flop. So, indeed, I might add, has been much of the Chancellor's economic strategy, but we are concerned about this flop within the arts.
The Minister made great play on the amount of business sponsorship—contributions from corporations and from individuals that the arts could fall back on. But that simply is not enough. We on this side of the House have no ideological hang-up about accepting private money for the arts. However, it is really just top-up money. It can never be anything more than a little bit on the side—though perhaps that is an unfortunate expression, given the revelations about Members and their research assistants that we have been reading in the newspapers recently.
The Minister should not place too much faith in private sponsorship. Public investment in the arts is generally disinterested—-disinterested, in the sense that it is not looking for a commercial return. Business men do not give money for nothing. They do not give it as an act of total generosity. They expect and, indeed, receive a great deal back. In fact, they add very little to the great body of the arts that we have inherited.
The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned the New York Met. He said that it was producing no new work. Of course, the United States relies very heavily, if not exclusively, on private sponsorship of the arts. We are not going to add to our great cultural inheritance in this country if we allow the managing director of Shell, of Metal Box or of GKN to decide who and what is going to be funded in artistic terms. It is not surprising that this scheme has been a flop. I suspect that the Chancellor will not want to refer to it in any great detail tomorrow.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the disturbing features of commercial sponsorship is that the sponsors do not contribute for altruistic reasons? They would gain more credit if they did, with a very small acknowledgment on the back of some card or programme. In fact, they insist on scattering their name and logo over every bit of paper and other material they can lay their hands on. In fact, they are prostituting the arts for the sake of advertising.

Mr. Banks: That is true of the generality of corporate sponsors of the arts. Indeed, they go further. They insist on being allocated large blocks of seats to entertain their clients. The orchestra or the artist is often required to come

to a reception, perhaps provided by the arts body itself, so that the chairman of the board and the directors, and whoever else is involved, can be seen with famous people. That is the way it is done. These people do not contribute out of altruism; they contribute—and I do not blame them because it is very good for public relations. Marty of them, when they underwrite exhibitions, for example, do not have to contribute anything at all, particularly if the exhibitions are very successful. They get a very good return in terms of corporate image-building.
As I came in on the District line this morning. my attention was caught by one of the poems on the Underground. Again, this is something in the setting up of which the GLC was very much involved. We wanted far more street murals. We wanted to have poems and paintings on buses and Underground trains. We wanted to take the arts into public places where there was greater democracy and where people could enjoy them whilst going about their daily activities. We wanted to put the arts into public buildings and on to the streets. Too much of a barrier still exists around many of our arts institutions and it deters many people.
In so far as I would ever agree with anything said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, it would be that so much of the arts have become white middle-class preserves. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is more concerned about them being white or middle-class, but what he said in our last arts debate was something that many of my hon. Friends have been arguing.
That poem on the Underground was by Cicly Herbert and called "Everything Changes". The last line runs:
We plant trees for those born later.
That should characterise our whole attitude towards the arts. We are planting trees that might not necessarily flourish in our time, but we will have the satisfaction of knowing that they will be in full blossom for the generations that come later. If the Prime Minister is interested in the earth as a whole when she says that we have only a leasehold and that we should make improvements, that should be true for the arts in this country also, so that we really do
plant trees for those born later.
Public funding is truly disinterested funding. Taste and popularity should not be the dominant considerations in decisions about funding particular art forms. We must continue to build on what we have inherited. If we do so, we shall pass on to the next generation, to those who are not yet born, the arts in the flourishing state in which we would wish them to be.

9 pm

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I join my colleagues in paying a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for the manner in which he introduced the debate. I congratulate him on his good fortune in the ballot, on his choice of subject, which has brought us into the Chamber, and on his excellent speech.
It is true that the richness of our culture, our life and our traditions is utterly dependent on the arts. That being so, the Government's record on the arts is worthy of commendation. The House will expect me to prove that, and I shall seek so to do.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts made one of the most courageous statements on the arts ever made in the House. In a written answer on 3 November he said that his aim was
to give arts bodies a firm basis on which to plan their future activities and to encourage greater self-reliance and diversification in their sources of funding." [Official Report, 3 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 705]
Within the confines of that statement, we have the kernel of success in the arts.
Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) I am a dedicated disciple of private sponsorship for the arts. We owe a great deal of gratitude to people who sponsor the arts with private funding. At the end of today, I shall walk to my home and pass the wonderful epitaph to Joseph Mallord William Turner, our greatest British painter, whose works are stored and displayed in the Clore gallery. I am unashamedly grateful for the £6 million that was provided after 150 years to house the wonderful collection of Turner's work.
We must not only safeguard our heritage, but following the wonderful tribute to the arts that was picked up on the Circle or Central line—

Mr. Tony Banks: It was the District line.

Dr. Blackburn: Well, it is a piece of good Conservative philosophy that we must look to the future and to future generations because we have a responsibility in such matters. Indeed, we stand united in saying that there can be no dispute on this because the Government have spent record sums on the arts. That is not a matter for debate. Such debates are futile. I, like many hon. Members, have continually stressed that annual funding of the arts is absurd beyond belief. Galleries, museums and theatres could not make positive plans when the arts were financed annually. I pay a warm and generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who in future will be known as the Minister who introduced forward planning under the three-year rolling programme. That was a wonderful achievement to the benefit of the arts.
When we read the debate tomorrow in the Official Report, we will note that it centred on the metropolis. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea concentrated his remarks on the metropolis; my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) centred his remarks on the Victoria and Albert museum; and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) naturally dealt with the metropolis. I should like to take the debate north of Watford, because until now no reference has been made to the provinces.
It is critical that we consider what is happening to the arts in the provinces. There is a desire for the arts there, which is substantiated by the fact that 70 per cent. of all business sponsorship of the arts is in the provinces and not the metropolis. I was especially encouraged when I discovered that the Royal Ballet is moving to Birmingham, which is tremendous news for the provinces. There is an audience and thirst for the arts, so let us take them northwards.
I speak from rich experience. I remember many years ago visiting the Albert dock in Liverpool. A member of my family was the policeman in charge of a bonded warehouse there for 20 years. It was beyond my wildest dreams that

one day that bonded tobacco warehouse would become the Tate of the north. It is a miracle that the Tate of the north is situated in Liverpool.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is not present. He was concerned about the British film industry, to which he paid a correct tribute, which I endorse. Within the past five hours, I have tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the film industry. The tenor of it was: what sum was passed to the Secretary of State on the dissolution of the British Film Fund Agency and to what purposes connected with the British film industry will the money be put? That shows my concern for the British film industry and the fact that I believe that there is genius, art and skill within it.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be standing at the Dispatch Box tomorrow and it will be interesting to learn the figures that he may reveal about the earnings from some of those sectors of the art industry. I use the expression "the art industry" deliberately because it is an industry which employs 200,000 people and produces profits of more than £250 million. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who have just returned from America, will be able to give adequate testimony to the wonderful features of the British theatre industry in the United States.
When we consider the movement of the art world northwards, it would be unfair not to pay a sincere tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has visited my constituency within the past 12 months. While he was there, his first visit was to meet the local people who supported the arts in the Dudley area. He received a warm welcome, especially from the Socialist mayor, and he spent a day looking at the arts coming to life in the black country of the west midlands. I applaud him for that. He was able to see much, although at times with some discomfort, and he was able to climb the ramparts of the 900-year-old Dudley castle. He visited the castle not because of the heritage, but because he could see the potential that we are now exploiting to develop Dudley castle as a centre for the arts in the middle of the west midlands. Dudley castle has not yet fulfilled its destiny. I should like to see the arts come alive there, even at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
As has been said, art cannot develop in poverty, and artists cannot display their skills in bad economic circumstances. I shall always take great pride in the fact that I was born in Lancashire, one mile from the little house in which Lowry produced his works. I am now by adoption and tradition a midlander and I join many in the midlands in celebrating this year the centenary of the birth of David Bomberg. He was born in Birmingham, the son of a Polish refugee and one of a family of seven living in one room. He was able to produce the works of art that were shown 12 months ago in the Tate gallery. I bow at the throne of art because it is a place where I find apostles such as Lowry and Bomberg, who have enriched this country by their art. I recommend my right hon. Friend the Minister not only to give great emphasis to the points raised this evening, but to hear my cry that the arts are alive north of Watford and need encouraging.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Can you really assure us that the arts are alive north of Watford? Have you seen that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not addressing me.

Mr. Buchan: I knew that you, Mr. Speaker would know the answer to that. but I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) could confirm it. I am struck dumb by the hon. Gentleman's remarks—a fact which may be helpful to other hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate. I am reminded of a famous occasion during the folk song revival when an enthusiastic MC said, "Folk song is here to stay." Folk song had been with us since the beginning of time but just because there had been a revival lasting two years people claimed that it was here to stay. What the hell do you mean when you say that the arts are alive north of Watford? They have never been dead. The trouble is that you have not realised it—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Buchan: I told you, Mr. Speaker, that I had been bowled over by the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the visit by the Minister to a 900-year-old castle, built long before Ministers produced subsidies for art or architecture. The arts have been alive for a very long time. We are talking not just about the narrow meaning of the arts but about British civilisation in general. The arts go very much wider than we often seem to realise in our discussions—art is not merely that which is sponsored or subsidised or funded by the Arts Council.
We have all been disturbed at what has happened at the Victoria and Albert museum, although I am not sure how helpful it is to discuss it here. I think that it would be useful if the Minister tried some approach to those involved. I do not believe that there is malice on either side. The parties are not so far apart in their intentions, but they are finding it difficult to distinguish between the curatorial and administrative functions. The problem ought to be solved and it would be solved if sufficient funding were available. A great deal of strain is being put on the museum, which is being asked to look after the care of the permanent collection while at the same time providing open exhibitions. To a large extent, it is a financial problem and I, for one, am sorry that the director, whose work I know, has felt compelled to act as she has. The matter has been allowed to go too far without anyone intervening.
Another tragedy is that by introducing admission charges the V and A has reduced the numbers of visitors, just as we said that it would. It is nonsense to create a museum for people to visit and then immediately impose a barrier to prevent them from visiting it. This will prevent people from making initial contact and from seeing things that might spark off their interest and develop their awareness and understanding of the arts. I am not talking merely about scholastic or academic considerations—museums can trigger interest and a response, but that function is being blocked by admission charges.
We grossly underfund our museums. Italy has the largest open-air art gallery in the world, which is free to the majority of Italian people. I understand why visitors are

charged, because the cost of running the collections is enormous. Admittedly, there is a tourist return, but if Italy can offer art free to its people, I do not see why we cannot. Our national museums should be better funded, and above all they should be free. We should not erect barriers at the very point of contact between the public and our collections.
Those who are already experienced or educated or who have been dragged along to museums will continue to go to them when charges are imposed, but some youngsters never get such a chance, because they are never taken to museums. At one time a couple coming to south Kensington from the working-class areas of London could visit the science museum, the Natural History museum and the V and A free, but now they all make a charge, so that opportunity is blocked.
I argued the case with Mr. Cossons who, while at Greenwich, was the first to break ranks and advocate charging for entry to a national museum. I said that if was permissible in that case, because people tended deliberately to set off to Greenwich. It was not a matter of dropping in. That gentleman said, "Quite right—I would never have considered doing that in south Kensington." In south Kensington, it would be a matter of dropping in, but now he has taken the same decision in south Kensington, and attendance has dropped. If the Minister could restore funding, he could help to solve the immediate crisis at the V and A.
Secondly, an appalling list of barriers, in the form of specific Government legislation or proposals, have been put in the way of the development of our civilisation. I refer to the Green Paper on libraries. Fortunately, the Government got a bloody nose over it and have withdrawn the main thrust of it. For the first time, a Green Paper had encouraged libraries to charge for the loan of special books, new books and biographies. That encouragement has been rejected. The Government have failed to understand that libraries represent a good deal more than the arts. They are part of our information services. I cannot understand why they should introduce charging for computerised information.
Above all, there is the appalling White Paper on broadcasting. I hope that the Minister for the Arts puts up a fight before that terrible paper was produced. We know the consequences of it, and we knew the problem facing those who produced it. We know the problems in having some kind of direction or control in satellite broadcasting, but we cannot afford to have a Government who surrender to technology and say that they cannot cope. By surrendering to technology, they have carried technology further, so that it now controls us instead of our controlling it. An instrument which could have been a marvellous means of expanding human experience has been chained within the exigencies of market philosophy so that we now have the profit motive instead of the sharing of human experience.
The development of satellite television is comparable to the invention of the alphabet. We can speak immediately and simultaneously to the rest of mankind. It is a marvellous instrument, but it has been turned into a financial market operation so that it can be created as cheaply as possible and sold as expensively as possible.
Exactly analogous with entry fees at museums is the movement towards subscription broadcasting. The moment we have subscription broadcasting we shall begin to set up a barrier to contact. I refer to the same example


as I did in relation to the White Paper. Who would have subscribed to a channel which said, "We will show you a programme depicting man with gorillas, bats in caves, and new reptiles in the Brazilian jungle"? None of us would have subscribed to such a channel. But, because there was open access through public service broadcasting, a mass programme has been built for Bellamy, Attenborough and others. These are mass programmes, not minority programmes.
None of the kids who are involved in such actitivities, thoughts and experiences would have seen those programmes if it had depended on their parents paying into a subscription channel. The Government have blocked people's experience. Instead of the marvellous new technology being used to expand human experience and to bring young people into contact with a wide variety of human experience, it is being blocked by charges in museums, the inhibitions that will come from the Green Paper on libraries, and by the switch away from free, open universal access to public broadcasting.
Thirdly, we have the beginnings of specific Government intervention in the arts. I refer to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, for example. I doubt whether anyone will be charged with breaking section 28, but that is not the problem of censorship. Censorship is not designed to use laws to take people to court and to punish them. The function of censorship and censorship law is to inhibit the development of programmes because they might be subject to censorship. Thus censorship prevents creation.
We have seen the extension of the Broadcasting Standards Council. I have spoken to the new director, who I think means well. He appears to believe that somehow the Broadcasting Standards Council is a substitute for the existence of regulatory broadcasting. There is nothing in the White Paper on broadcasting to ensure good standards, but only provision to control decency and taste. That is another factor which will inhibit the proper development of our arts. The threat of another obscenity Act is also still with us. There is intervention in all those ways. [Interruption.] I am receiving all sorts of signals that I should shut up and sit down. It is a pity that I did not know earlier that this debate was on or I should have been here at the beginning.
The south bank is not for London alone—it was created by a Labour Government to be part of a national celebration of a national festival, so we have a major responsibility to get it right. The last thing that we should do is to turn it into a pork pie festival. The south bank has much to offer. Unfortunately, its functions have narrowed since it was started and I share the distaste of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that in place of the open space where books were available there is an expensive restaurant.
The problem with private sponsorship is that it sets the agenda for the arts. Matching public funds will be called into play to support private funds. I should like to see public funds setting the agenda for private funds, if necessary, to follow, and there are ways of doing that without determining what should be supported by a particular company.
Sponsorship is, of course, advertising. The benefits must be proved if the matching funds are to be

forthcoming. Another thing wrong with sponsorship is that it is limited to the safe and the glamorous. The Royal Insurance Company helps to determine the Royal Shakespeare Company's touring programme on the grounds that it wants the company to tour the towns in which is has a major presence.
The analysis by the National Campaign for the Arts shows that few of the smaller theatres receive sponsorship of more than 1, 2 or 3 per cent. Philip Hedley's theatre—the Theatre Royal at Stratford atte Bowe—found that it could not raise enough money through sponsorship to pay the salary of the man who was looking for sponsorship. It tried to get sponsorship for a play called "Pork Pies". A local meat merchant who made pork pies and cooked meat agreed to sponsor the play until he discovered that "Pork Pies" was rhyming slang for lies and that the play was about police corruption. When he realised that, he dropped the idea of sponsorship.
In the past 12 months, we have lost this country's first Minister of the Arts—Jennie Lee. Jennie was dedicated to the development and expansion of the arts. She believed in art for everyone. She saw, too, that it was related to the expansion of human wisdom and understanding. She was also the founder of the Open university. We must see the arts as a link with civilisation and education generally. As Shelley said, the arts are
the unacknowledged legislators of the world.
We must understand that wisdom can follow the arts and wisdom can develop from the arts. We must understand, too, that the inspiration about which we have heard so much today is sometimes a concrete shared experience, not just looking at a landscape from the top of a 900-year-old castle, even at Dudley.

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I hope that I will be forgiven if my contribution is rather specific after such a wide-ranging debate covering such things as Dudley castle and the Central line—

Mr. Tony Banks: District line.

Mr. Fishburn: Yes, District line—I will get it right at the end of the day.
Earlier we heard about the tuba-playing technique of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), whose wisdom and good luck produced this debate this evening—for which many thanks.
I want to discuss dance and ballet. I must immediately declare an interest. I am a director of the London Festival Ballet—a position which provides no remuneration, but which gives me a small insight into this particular branch of the arts. The London Festival Ballet is soon to be renamed the English National Ballet to reflect its position not merely as the nation's second ballet company but also as a company that tours widely outside the metropolis and around the world, to the United States and Europe.
About a year ago ballet suddenly became the great darling of the arts world after being buried for nearly 30 years under the world of opera—which has for so long attracted the lion's share of funds and a large share of establishment investment in the arts in the metropolis. That transition came about because, last summer, a large number of international dance theatres descended coincidentally upon this city. The Kirov, ballet groups from Europe and great American dance companies came over to London and there was a response from people


leading to a sudden increase in audiences and an increase in the awareness of ballet and its potential as a modern art form.
Londoners also responded because they woke up to the fact that our resources for putting on dance—either our own national dance companies or visiting companies—were completely inadequate when compared with other European cities. This led to a debate on why that was and what we might do about it.
It is a pity that, in the new plans for the south bank, the bold idea of having, for the first time, a national dance theatre based in London, has not been seized. The Minister has been sympathetic to this branch of the arts and I hope that he will consider the various plans to co-ordinate, if not a dance theatre, at least a receiving house—somewhere in London where visiting companies could play in the kind of conditions that they might expect in Holland, Denmark or Stockholm. Let us not try to reach for the stars by emulating the conditions in Paris or New York.
This woeful lack of facilities now rests with the Arts Council and the Government to consider. I welcome the recent Devlin report on dance by the Arts Council. I strongly endorse that report's call for the funding of ballet and dance companies to be on a three year basis—the Minister has now encouraged most arts funding to be on that basis. As a director of a dance or opera company, one must plan the full three years ahead. If one is unsure of the level of subsidy from the Arts Council, or any other funding body one is planning in the dark.
I endorse many of the findings of the Devlin report and look forward to that report giving a shot in the arm to Britain's dance world.
Despite this attention, the future of the London Festival Ballet and of its related organisation, the English National Opera, is in doubt. The ENO is lucky in having a more senior and distinguished parliamentarian than I on its board, and if the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) were here, I am sure he would agree that our common fear is that those two organisations may not be with us in five years, unless the Government can give us some advanced assurances that their funding will continue in the years ahead.
As the Minister well knows, I am not speaking about funding from the Arts Council, which can be obtained in the usual way. I am talking about the grant which used to come from the Greater London council, which the Government quite rightly thought should be continued and which is paid, through Westminster council, to both English National Opera and the English National Ballet.
This money is now subject to a large question mark. The Minister has not yet said whether it will be forthcoming. It constitutes almost a third of the running costs of the London Festival Ballet—and I imagine about the same proportion of those of the English National Opera. If the money is not forthcoming, once the new system of community charge is introduced—there is no doubt that the city of Westminster will be unable to raise the money on its own because to do so it would have to charge an extra £20 per resident—those of us who sit on the boards of such companies will face a possible term in jail if we are not careful. When planning ahead, we might plan for a season that simply could be funded.
No groups have done more than the London Festival Ballet and the English National Opera to raise private funds. We realise that the system of raising private funds

has been greatly encouraged, not least through matching grants, which we have used to the enormous advantage of our companies and of the programmes that we are able to put on. We must have some assurances that, beyond private sponsorship, we shall obtain increased or continuing sponsorship from the Government so that we can plan for the future. We shall then be able to grow the trees about which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked and to produce a ballet company which is not merely the second ballet company in this country but one of the better ballet companies on this continent.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the arts, and I wish to talk about the major post-war mass art form—the cinema, which, although somewhat overtaken by television networks, is still an important popular art form. Audiences have increased from 53 million in 1984 to 74·8 million in 1987. Unfortunately, the philistines in the Government are destroying the cinema from without by their tax policies, and the enterprise culture spivs are eroding it from within.
The Financial Weekly of August 1987 provides a good summary of the position:
The United Kingdom Government severely curtailed subsidies when it abolished the Eady Levy and the National Film Finance Corporation. In its place came the mainly privately funded British Screen Finance Corporation with an annual budget of about £1·8 million. But producers iay the BSFC's fund represents a drop in the ocean and will largely benefit small film projects rather than the blockbusters.
The French government, on the other hand, awards grants and loan guarantees as do the West Germans, the Italians and the Australians. The United Kingdom Government prides itself on having made film companies eligible under the Business Expansion Scheme but this is not considered to be anything more than a token gesture.
That is about right. The feature film figures for 1985 were 55, and in 1986 they dropped to 37. In the midst of the enterprise culture, feature film production figures are no longer collated by the Government. With the abolition of the Eady levy, and the NFFC, the stimulus has disappeared.
One example of erosion from the inside is that of Elstree studios. Incidentally, the Government have just refused to list the studios, although they acknowledge that they form an important part of the history of the British film industry. They say that that is not a good enough reason to list them. That gives the property developers freedom to exploit the site to a greater degree, which in turn places the studios under greater threat—a further erosion of the facilities in this country.
I remind the House that the studios were first sold to Cannon by Thorn EMI in 1986. Gordon Borrie wanted to refer the takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because Cannon owned other cinemas, but he was overruled by a Minister. Cannon then sold off the massive collection of 2,000 feature films and newsreels dating back to 1894, so our heritage as recorded on film was arbitrarily sold by people who wanted to asset-strip one of our major studios.
Elstree studios is the place where "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and several other Indiana Jones films were produced. The last major feature film made there was "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". The studios were closed after the last Steven Spielberg production and sold to Tranwood Earl, which resold them to Brent Walker at an enhanced profit.


Because of the high price of the studios, the latter will have to sell the outside lot and probably close three sound stages, thereby reducing the facilities for people like Steven Spielberg.
It is worth reminding the Minister why Steven Spielberg comes to the United Kingdom to make feature films that cost more than £10 million each. He comes not because of the exchange rate but because—he told me this himself in this building—of the craftsmanship and skill in this country, which are far superior, incredible though it may sound, to the skills in Hollywood. That is because Hollywood has allowed its training system to fall into disuse, and that is what is happening here.
Because of a lack of Government support, in 1987 Pinewood changed from full-time staffing with proper apprenticeship schemes to maintain and develop skills, to a four-wall studio. So now we depend on freelance employment, and skills and training are being eroded. In time that means that the United Kingdom, whose abilities and skills are ahead of those of the United States, will suffer a further erosion of its film industry.
The potential to make big-budget and, more importantly, small-budget films is being eroded. Small-budget films perhaps reflect more accurately our indigenous culture and attitudes. British Screen Finance Ltd., which replaced the NFFC, receives a miserly £1·5 million a year, and that will soon end. By contrast, in 1987 Australia gave £18 million and West Germany £15·7 million to their film industries.
Now there is a threat to Channel 4 in the Government's White Paper. It has been financing low-budget theatrical productions. If we want to maintain feature film productions that represent our way of life, the Government must provide more support by direct means and through a more sympathetic tax regime.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I join many other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) not only on choosing this subject for debate but on an excellent speech. He spoke extremely well in the last debate on this subject, but I thought that he capped that tonight. It was remarkable to hear Conservative Members talking so passionately and with such knowledge about community arts and participation in the arts, and I agree with everything said about them.
The hon. Member for Battersea made a distinguished opening, and every speech since has lived up to that high standard. We have come to expect as much from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
There have been some other very interesting contributions. I thought I was going to fall out with the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) because of his earlier remarks, but I was delighted when he moved on to a passionate advocacy of the importance of the regions, and indeed, of people like David Bomberg, and I think he had the House with him there. I was particularly delighted with the contribution from the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), coming to our debate for the

first time and raising with such knowledge from outside the House the whole question of dance and the Devlin report. I think he added to the quality of the debate.
It has been, I think, an excellent debate, for which, as I say, the House is in the debt of the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted that this debate has not concentrated on funding, and I certainly intend to avoid that today. We tend to have very sterile arguments about funding in these debates, and we all have our views on how to interpret the figures. I will leave it to those companies, mainly national but all over the country, which know that they will only get a 2 per cent. increase this year when inflation is 7·5 per cent. The Government must make their peace with them or bear them in mind next year, because they will suffer and the arts will suffer when they are, in relation to inflation, so poorly funded this year.
Let us not get into a debate on funding. I want to talk, in the minutes left to me, about policy and strategy, and I think we do so in an interesting and perhaps rather optimistic context, when we gather from the Downing street press office that the Prime Minister intends this year to take an interest in the arts and to become a champion of the arts. We on the Opposition Benches are always happy to welcome sinners, even at such a late hour. The record of her Administration to date on the arts has not been good, but if she is seriously going to take an interest, that offers enormous opportunities to the Minister: I hope he will grasp them.

Mr. Buchan: In view of her record in every other field of human activity, is my hon. Friend really as sanguine as all that?

Mr. Fisher: I am an optimist: if she bothers to read a debate such as this—as I am sure, if she is going to get involved in the arts, she will—perhaps there is hope. It certainly offers an opportunity, as I say, for the Minister to exploit. Whether this is a tactical move by the Prime Minister or not, there are opportunities for the Minister to make a stronger pitch for the arts.
The other interesting context of our debate today is the announcement last Friday by the distinguished novelist, A. N. Wilson, in the pages of The Spectator, that he will in future be voting for the Labour party. It is interesting that one of the prime reasons he gives is the very poor record of this Government on the arts, and their failure over museums and libraries; and he gives a great catalogue of the Government's failures. Whereas the Prime Minister offers the Minister opportunities, the latter should perhaps read Mr. Wilson's remarks to see that there are many creative artists in this country, who still need to be convinced about the record of this Government.
I certainly agree with the personal remarks that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South made about the Minister. The whole arts world is aware that he fulfils his responsibilities conscientiously; he has absolutely no enemies, and many friends, wherever he goes. I will go further: some things which have happened under his aegis—the move of the Tate to the north, the relocation of Sadler's Wells and, most particularly, three-year funding—stand out as distinct achievements, which will be remembered when this Administration are dead and buried.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South in saying that three-year funding is all very well, and certainly an improvement, but it is no good unless there is the


money to fund it, and three-year funding going down below the rate of inflation is a permanent drain on most companies rather than a help.
However, in spite of those few isolated achievements, the record of this Government on the arts has been one of failure—not just failure to fund adequately, but failure to back local authorities when they are expanding arts provision and failure to widen access for the disabled, for black and Asian people and for women.
There was also a failure last year to grasp the possibilities in the John Myerscough report. The Minister was handed an economic argument which he did not pick up and run with. He should have gone straight to the Treasury and made a strong economic case. He failed to do that. There has been a failure of leadership from the Government and the Minister and a failure of imagination. The opportunities, the audiences and the creative artists are there, but over the past 10 years of this Administration we have lacked a Government with a clear policy and strategy. That failure undermines any specific good achievements or intentions—and I am sure that the Minister's intentions are good.
We all agree that the British Theatre Association is a unique national and international institution. However, at the end of this month it is in danger of closure unless the Minister accepts that he has a responsibility for that institution. Of course it may be right from the Minister's point of view and that of the Conservative party that he should try to find alternative means of support. Perhaps he can make an exciting announcement to the House tonight. I somehow fear that he will not be able to do that. The partners that he has tried to marriage-broke for the BTA library—the Victoria and Albert museum, the British library and the Central School of Speech and Drama—are all willing partners, but they all want some Government funding. The Minister should understand that he must accept a national responsibility for institutions like the BTA library which fulfil a national function.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) referred to the Devlin report and its relationship to the Northern Ballet Theatre. The Minister's comments in response to an Adjournment debate the other night were marginally encouraging. However, he should recognise that the report recommended closure so as to properly fund other aspects of dance. Those recommendations were based on the understanding that there should be no increase in funding.
The Minister should consider how positive investment in the very popular art form of dance has worked in France. That art form has captured the imagination of young people. Positive investment by the French Government in that art form has unleashed an enormously exciting new wave of interest in dance in France. The Minister must understand that he should have a policy of expansion towards dance and he should be backing new ideas.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to the Victoria and Albert museum. He most responsibly, courteously and cautiously referred to very difficult areas and issues. However, I thought that he was a trifle unfair on the director. It is not a matter of personal responsibility. I do not think that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South intended to be unfair. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South that we should consider the problem in a financial context, because next year the V and A's wage bill will be more than

the total grant. In those circumstances, the new director had an almost impossible task and had to look for radical measures.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that something had to be done about the organisation of the V and A. However, we may wonder whether a five-page document which contained no financial analysis or implications for the future was the proper way to plan the future administration and the curatorial skills and scholarship in a great national museum. Many hon. Members would doubt whether that short and, I believe, inadequate document should have been given to the trustees just 15 minutes before the trustees' meeting. It is doubtful whether the trustees were aware that there would be redundancies involving nine of the most senior and respected staff including international experts like John Mallet. Many of us would question whether simply giving those nine members of staff a three-and-a-half minute interview in which they were told that their contribution to scholarship and the museum was at an end was the right way to proceed.
As the hon. Member for Kensington said, there is a general lack of morale in the V and A. The museum has been badly handled, but I do not put the bad morale down entirely to the director. I hope that the Minister will consider his role in all this. I asked that question of him the other day in respect of Professor Martin Kemp who, when he resigned as a trustee, said that he was doing so because of Government interference.
On that occasion, the Minister chose to answer that there was no interference in the museum's day-to-day administration, but that did not answer the question that I put to him. I asked whether there had been Government interference or involvement in the restructuring plan. I asked whether the Minister knew about it, whether he or his officials had seen Lord Armstrong, chairman of the trustees, and whether he was involved in the Treasury negotiations that miraculously produced at least £300,000 and possibly £1 million to fund the redundancy programme.
If tonight the Minister answers no to all those questions, I will agree with the hon. Member for Battersea that it is incredible that that most valued of institutions should not concern the Minister. If the Minister answers yes, I ask him to explain the full extent of his involvement. They are important issues that affect right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Is it right that the board of trustees should not include a single member who has any museum experience? As the hon. Member for Battersea said, the trustees are all distinguished and eminent in their fields, but none has any museum experience.
Other serious questions must be answered. Of course the museum must keep up to date, but is a display of the Sock Shop the epitome of British design, and the one aspect of it that the Victoria and Albert museum should be displaying? I understand that the museum's next exhibition will be about Burberry raincoats, and the one following that will be in Harrods. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that last year, the museum exhibited Elton John's memorabilia, which served as a preview of a sale at Sotheby's. The House has a right to ask serious questions about the policy direction that the museum is taking. The Minister owes the House his views and opinions.
I turn to the subject of administration. The arts world as a whole applauded the Minister when he set up a much-needed and long-awaited review of the organisation and structure of the arts and appointed his former senior civil servant, Richard Wilding, to conduct it. Mr. Wilding is widely respected and liked in the arts world. The word from the regions is that the way in which he is genuinely listening and examining the situation is much appreciated.
I hope that the Minister will reaffirm tonight that whatever happens as a result of that review, the importance of the regions and of local authorities will be paramount, and that they will not become ciphers or regional offices of the Arts Council. If developments at a local authority level are to be fostered and nurtured, there must be strong links between them and regional arts associations. I hope that Mr. Wilding will have the Minister's backing, and that the Minister will encourage Mr. Wilding along those lines in his remarks tonight.
As to strategy, there are many key issues for the Minister to grasp. Ironically, and happily for him, positive moves can be made at very low cost. Some can be made at no cost at all to the Government. There are ways in which the Minister could make his leadership of the arts count and in which he can develop and co-ordinate policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, in London there are major developments both in respect of the Royal Opera House and its effect on the local community, and of the south bank. The Minister ought to take a line, as did his counterpart in respect of the Pompidou centre in Paris. He should be not only putting in money but taking a lead in setting standards and criteria in the way that projects will be scrutinised, so that the best results will be obtained.
The arts in London cry out for the Minister to bring people together. There is Greater London Arts, the abolition of ILEA, the London boroughs arts scheme, and the residuary body. Some of the London boroughs, because of Greater London Arts, are developing fast but in isolation from each other. There is a crying need for co-ordination. In the absence of a democratic body such as the Greater London council, there is a desperate need for someone to hold the ring, and the Minister can play a strategic role in that regard.
The right hon. Gentleman also has a strategic role to play in the widening of access, which is apparently one of the Prime Minister's interests. I shall believe that when I see it, although it is welcome that she is prepared to say so. The Minister should be responding more positively, for instance, to the "After Attenborough" report on the arts and disability, and I hope that he will send a message of extreme disapproval to the Arts Council about its application for a disabled access exemption certificate. That sends the arts world the wrong signal, and I hope that the Minister will get in touch with the new chairman of the Arts Council to say that it is not good enough.
Will the Minister look in particular at the built environment? Prince Charles has given a lead, and I am glad to say that the Minister has backed the Arts Council's "percentage for arts" initiative. He is not, however, encouraging the local authorities that are also adopting the policy, such as Swindon, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Dundee and Wakefield.
The Minister is not getting his act together with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is sending out completely contradictory advice. His White Paper "The Future of Development Plans" says that aesthetic aid should be a key element in planning applications. Last week, only weeks of issuing that White Paper, he sent out a planning policy guidance note saying exactly the opposite: "Whatever you do to local authorities, do not take aesthetic matters into account." There is a lack of co-ordination there.
There are problems in various Departments. The poll tax will have an enormous effect on English National Opera and on local authorities' ability to fund the arts, while the DTI has problems resulting from the withdrawal of MSC funding. In education, problems arise from the national curriculum and the restriction on funding of school visits to theatres and other displays of the performing arts. In the Home Office, there is the question of the broadcasting White Paper—to which the Arts Council, to its credit, has responded positively and critically, speaking up for the arts, but on which I have heard no comment from the Minister.
The whole country faces a major problem in relation to freedom of speech. Mr. Salman Rushdie is in acute difficulties. He needs every Member on both sides of the House to support the absolute principle of freedom of speech, but the Minister has said nothing about that either. I hope that he will take this opportunity to break his silence, and will state categorically not that Mr. Rushdie's book is offensive but that, on the contrary, it is a very fine novel—a great work of the imagination—and that Mr. Rushdie is entirely free and right.
If this debate can achieve anything, it will encourage the Minister to take the initiative on some of the aspects that I have mentioned. It will cost him no money to adopt a strategic and policy-making role.
The hon. Member for Battersea described the arts as a source of great celebration in the House and throughout society. I agree, but I hope that he will accept that they are a source not only of celebration but of dissent and uncomfortable opinions. The arts must stretch us as individuals and as a society. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West referred to the beautiful image created by the words of the poet Cecily Herbert of a tree planted for the future. If that tree is to give us all hope, the arts must not just celebrate; they must also offer the opportunity for challenge and dissent. If the Minister can respond to such a wide range of strategy, the arts and the House will pay tribute to him.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I echo the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) about the atmosphere of the debate, which has been very positive. Without a shadow of doubt the speeches from both sides of the House have been remarkable. Where would we have been without the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), let alone many of my hon. Friends?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on launching the debate and giving the House the opportunity to discuss the arts—a subject that is becoming increasingly important to people's lives in Britain and will continue to be so into the 1990s. My hon.


Friend made a remarkable and very moving speech about the importance of arts to individuals in Britain. I enjoyed his description of the variety of instruments that he has tried to play over the years and, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West suggested, he can almost form his own one-man band. My only claim to fame in public is that. when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!), who, sadly, is unwell and unable to be here tonight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon West (Miss Nicholson) played a duet in the Festival hall to raise funds for research into AIDs, I turned the pages. I got it right and I am very proud of that.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South mentioned the late Jennie Lee. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a very generous speech and was very kind about the fact that I have broken various records and described myself as the Methuselah of Arts Ministers. It is right and proper for me to mention the late Jennie Lee who, in her own way, was a remarkable Minister for the Arts. She was the first Minister for the Arts and sadly a number of us did not have the opportunity to attend an occasion when various tributes were paid to her. I am not blaming anyone for that, but it is only right that I should take the opportunity to pay tribute to a remarkable Minister for the Arts, although there have been differences in emphasis and approach between her policies and mine.
What has been remarkable about the debate is the respect shown by both sides for each other's interest in, and support for the arts, and although there are clear differences of opinion and approach, that is very important if we are to make any progress.
I shall try to answer the various points that have been raised and use the last few minutes of my speech to talk about one aspect of my strategy—reconciling artistic excellence with the right of access of people of all backgrounds in all parts of the country to the arts. But I shall begin by making one or two general points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea raised a number of issues. In particular he talked about funding the arts. He is right to say that the Government believe that the taxpayer has a role to play in supporting the arts and that the highest standards of excellence cannot be maintained without a measure of support from the taxpayer. I have sought to strengthen that use of taxpayers' money by the introduction of three-year funding, which is a rolling programme. There will be a continuous policy of three-year funding. I have introduced one or two new elements such as incentive funding, in which sums of money have been set aside to reward those organisations that show their ability to increase their self-reliance.
I am very glad that the first awards are being made, ranging from the Leadmill complex in Sheffield to the Royal Shakespeare Company and the English National Opera which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and others as it has now qualified for incentive funding. Last week I visited the excellent Tricycle theatre in London, which, despite the tragedy of being almost burnt down two years ago has shown enormous enterprise and has achieved an award, as has the 369 gallery in Edinburgh and other theatres such as the Cumbernauld theatre in Scotland. That is an important additional element of funding for arts bodies and helps to fulfil the overall strategy which hon. Members were talking about—the diversity of funding within the arts. When we

are talking about funding, I believe strongly that we cannot meet with success unless we have a sensible partnership between the public and the private sectors. Of course, I include local authorities as well as central Government.
Above all else, what brings money and resources into the arts is the box office, which no one has acknowledged properly. I regard the private sector as an increasingly important source of funding. As my lion. Friends have said, the economic strength of the country helps with its success there but it is you and I, Mr. Speaker, actually attending arts events, who are the biggest extra source of funding for the arts. As I see, looking to the 1990s, increasing numbers of people enjoying the arts, the biggest extra source of funding will be support through the box office. That is not to say that sponsorship does not have a singularly important role. I thought that some of the remarks about sponsorship were sad and negative. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and others said, sponsorship is an additional source of funding for the arts.
I was struck recently by what was said by Lord Goodman, who has not exactly agreed with everything that I have done in Government. In an article in The Times he wrote that over his time as chairman of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which was over many years from the 1970s until this year when he retired, he had not come across a case where sponsorship had interfered with the artistic performance of arts bodies. I thought that that was an impressive testimony to sponsorship's role in supporting the arts. It gets extra resources for the arts, and that is what we want. It is part of a pattern of looking to a variety of sources through self-reliance and avoiding overdependence on one source of funding—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—is important.
Many other points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea which fit in with issue raised by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West talked about support for the regions. He rightly acknowledged many of the changes that have taken place, including the switch of resources through regional arts associations and by other means to strengthen arts in all parts of the country. He referred to the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet moving to Birmingham. I am glad to be able to play a small part in helping finance that move. My hon. Friend also referred to the Tate of the north, as have other hon. Members. He was right to stress that there has been a switch of resources to many other parts of the country to strengthen the standards of excellence of the arts.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadhitter) is not here, but he made an impressive speech as a former teacher about the important role of schools. If I allow myself enough time, I shall return to that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South made an impressive speech. I am grateful to him for what he said. I was struck by the way in which he expressed his views about the Victoria and Albert museum. It is a great institution. I believe that it will remain a great institution, and that the chairman of the trustees and the director have its interest very much at heart and want to do whatever they can to improve it. I have confidence in them. I do not know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was disagreeing with me, but I believe that it is right that there responsibility should be delegated to chairman and trustees and, of course, to the director, in the day-to-day


management of these institutions. If, every time they made changes or ran into problems, I were immediately to intervene, that would undermine the principle of the delegation of responsibility. My overall accountability to the House, my overall responsibility, is the welfare of these institutions, of the great national museums and galleries in this country.
It goes without saying that I take a very close interest in the Victoria and Albert museum and the other institutions. I have been very closely briefed by the chairman and the director on recent developments at the V and A. I have also been heavily involved, over the last year, in discussions with the institutions about corporate strategies—five to 10-year plans—for these institutions. The V and A has been involved in that. Last year I talked to the people there about it. Over the past year, indeed, there has been intensive discussion about corporate strategy.
It is interesting that many of the remarks about the V and A indicated no quarrel with the concept of change in administration and management. However, some hon. Members argued that the way in which the matter has been handled might have been different. It is only right that I should note the views expressed in this House. Clearly, the mood of the House is that anything that can be done to improve the atmosphere should be done. The director of the Victoria and Albert is most anxious to have good relations with the staff. She is anxious that there should be high morale. I shall ensure that the views and anxieties that have been expressed are well and truly noted. I do not think that it would be helpful, at this stage, to go further than to say that I note very carefully what has been said.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, as always, made an interesting speech. His speeches are never uninteresting. He talked with passion about the south bank. The recently announced scheme of further redevelopment there is still at a very early stage. The South Bank board is inviting the widest possible comment. It will, of course, require planning permission, as well as permission from the Arts Council as the freeholder. The Arts Council and I will be examining very carefully the artistic, financial and architectural aspects of the proposal. No contracts will be signed without my agreement. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot of discussion has to take place before the scheme can get to that stage, and it will be my task to watch that with interest.
I welcome the concept of a partnership between the commercial sector and the public sector in respect of this great arts centre on the south bank. I hope—indeed, I think—that the House will support the harnessing of private sector resources to public sector resources to make it a success.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South made a speech that I enjoyed. I am very proud of the link with his city—Glasgow. I refer to my decision, with the approval of the cultural Ministers of Europe, that Glasgow should be the cultural city of Europe for next year. I am full of admiration for the way in which Glasgow has taken full advantage of that status, demonstrating to the outside world that the state of the arts, both performing and heritage there is quite remarkable, and that they can bring great benefits to the city and to the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) made a speech about the English National Opera. I acknowledge very strongly the achievements of the English National Opera and of the London Festival ballet, of which my hon. Friend is a director. Both those institutions are partly financed by the Westminster council. I note what my hon. Friend said. I hope that all the London boroughs will continue to play a part in supporting those institutions, and I shall follow progress with very close concern.
I want to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about strategy, and to end by making a particular point about the need, as I see it, to combine the highest standards of artistic excellence in this country with the right of people, wherever they live, to enjoy it. That is very much a strategy of mine. I believe that we have an overwhelming duty to ensure that the standards of artistic performance are of the highest and that, side by side with that, we have total freedom of speech and expression. People need to have their eyes opened to the enjoyment of the arts, whatever their background, wherever they live and whatever their education. That is why I welcome the increased attendance at museums in Museums Year and the increased audiences for dance and classical ballet, at the theatre and for so many forms of art. I want to do whatever I can to encourage that further.
One example of how we can do that is through education. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. There is now an opportunity in the Education Reform Act and with the other changes, because art and music are foundation subjects, to invest still further in our children and to open their eyes to what the arts can offer. Another way forward is to make an even greater and more effective link between the education units set up for performing arts on the one hand and heritage and museums on the other, and with the imagination of headmasters and teachers so that they use those facilities in such a way that their pupils can benefit. My right hon. Friend and I are discussing ways in which we can achieve that.
Various hon. Members have referred to broadcasting and I agree that it is an important area. It is noticeable that the media are playing an increasingly important role in supporting the arts through their latest programmes, for example "Signals" on Channel 4 and "The Late Show" on BBC2. Those and other programmes have shown how broadcasting can help to stimulate public interest in the arts. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to discuss the ways in which broadcasting could play a more prominent role.
We want to improve accessibility to the arts and as touring is one way of achieving that, we have injected more money into the Arts Council to help to encourage it to increase touring in this country. Our treasures are now being loaned on a much bigger scale. Some injustice is often done to our national institutions. The British museum now lends approximately 2,500 objects of art around the country. The Victoria and Albert museum lends over 3,000, and the Tate gallery also lends a great number. That has helped to increase and improve accessibility to the arts. The care and accessibility of our treasures is a priority and that is why we have injected more pump-priming money into their marketing. We are also pursuing policies in both the inner cities and in rural


areas and have given pump-priming money to the Carnegie trust to help it to stimulate more schemes to improve accessibility for disabled people.
Those are just some of the examples of the ways in which I am seeking to strengthen access to the arts in this country. We have artists of the highest quality and should

thank them for their contribution to our quality of life. There is a great upsurge of public interest in the arts—in our environment, in architecture and in the performing arts, and that is something that we can only welcome because it can only help us to achieve and enhance our quality of life.

Orders of the Day — Transport Safety

Mr. George J. Buckley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Consolidated Fund debate. It is perhaps appropriate that the preceding debate was about the arts as this transport safety debate could be regarded either as a tragedy or as a farce.
There has been a disturbing increase recently in the number of transport disasters and the public are becoming increasingly concerned about such major disasters. They must be wondering whether the transport system is beginning to feel the inevitable strain of inadequate investment. Pressure on it is being increased by the number of cars on our roads and the number of passengers using a reduced number of trains. Such pressure inevitably leads to tragedies such as those that we have experienced recently.
Reductions in staff and an increasing interest in reducing costs by reducing staff will lead to further pressures. There must be public fear about the reduction of staff, and one wonders whether there is a strategy for a transport system in which profit is the main concern, and whether the increasing profit motive which bedevils the Government's transport strategy will lead to a reduction in the maintenance and safety checks necessary to maintain a high standard of safety on the railways. If such pressure is put on transport systems, incidents such as those at Clapham, Purley and Glasgow will increase. Many ferry passengers suffered in the Zeebrugge tragedy as a result of the pursuance of profit margins.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the past few years there has been an enormous increase in investment in public transport services? Is he suggesting that that has not occurred? Surely he is not attributing those tragic accidents solely to a lack of investment.

Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting the message early in the debate. That is precisely the inference to be drawn from my speech.
One wonders whether safety is being compromised in the interests of profitability. I do not wish to press the point about tragedies, but evidence is mounting that the main motivation is the return on capital investment rather than safety. The risk of accident must be the highest consideration when developing new transport systems. I wonder whether that consideration of risk is part of the Government's strategy for preparing British Rail for privatisation. There is pressure on staff from management, who are determined to introduce cost-cutting exercises at the expense of safety.
For environmental reasons, it is proposed that two thirds of the link between the Channel tunnel and London will run underground. I am a supporter of environmental interests, but I wonder what will happen to this high-speed system which will be travelling underground for most of its journey. What would happen in the event of a major disaster in such a system, and has that been taken into account in the design and development of the system? What would happen if there was a catastrophe, such as the Clapham accident, on a major underground system of such length and high speed usage? What would be the

major safety requirements built into such a system so that people could be reached with medical assistance if a disaster occurred? Has the enthusiasm of Conservative Members to seek a green cloak blinded them to the possible dangers of the system?

Mr Alan Meale: Does not my hon. Friend's experience of mining accidents in which there was difficulty getting people out of long tunnels bear out his argument?

Mr. Buckley: My hon. Friend has got the point. The tragedies caused by such a calamity—

Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buckley: I shall make this point first. The hon. Gentleman may catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
The tragedy at Clapham and the difficulties of medical treatment would have been multiplied a thousand times if the railway there had been underground, as is proposed for the Channel tunnel link. I support environmental schemes, but I am also aware of the tragedy of King's Cross and the difficulties caused by a fire being underground. If a highspeed train caught fire in a tunnel, what would be the safety implications for dealing with such a tragedy?

Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buckley: No. This is a short debate and other hon. Members wish to contribute.
Pressure on our transport system will inevitably increase as the mobility of our people increases and there is an increase in traffic flow on our roads. Are the transport systems in our major cities, not least in London, able to cope with the increasing pressures that will be brought to bear on them? Will the lack of capital investment in our traffic systems lead to an upsurge in accidents?
It is anticipated that there will be an increase in traffic movements as a consequence of joining the European single market system. Is our transport system capable of coping safely with the increasing demand? High-speed trains and communications will be an inevitable consequence of the increase in traffic flow. Are our systems capable of dealing adequately with such a demand?
In the light of recent disasters, the possibility of such incidents in future must be considered. There could be an escalation of such incidents due to increasing pressure on the traffic systems, whether it be air traffic, rail traffic or motor traffic. The infrastructure has been neglected for so long that one wonders whether it can cope with the pressure that increasing demand and increasing flow will place on the systems. In the construction of new transport systems, will there be adequate investment in safety to prevent disasters such as those that we have recently experienced? The travelling public are becoming increasingly concerned about the safety of our transport systems.
The Department of Transport inevitably sets up inquiries following disasters, but if such inquiries do not result in the only proper solution being adopted, with major capital investment in safety schemes, nothing is gained from those unfortunate experiences. We do not seek to make party political issues out of tragedies, but the travelling public and the House should question whether the Department of Transport is dealing adequately with the problems.
Other hon. Members wish to speak on this important subject, so I shall not dwell on it much longer. In view of our recent experiences, it is right and proper that the House should debate it. I hope that the Minister will note the comments that are made, as the safety of the travelling public must be a major priority. There is no real benefit in an improved and more efficient system if tragedies such as those that we have experienced recently in the air, on the land and at sea continue to take place. I know that the importance of this short debate will not be lost on the travelling public.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) on his success in the ballot, and on choosing such an important subject. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I do not agree with him about financial investment in transport safety, so I shall not pursue that aspect of this very large subject.
Transport safety may involve making ships, aeroplanes, cars and lorries safer for those who travel in them. On the other hand, it may apply to pedestrians and others, to whom transport safety means safe roads and vehicles that do not travel too fast. Perhaps I may start with the second definition.
The safety of cars, lorries and motor bikes is best guaranteed by the availability of good roads. We are all aware that the motorway system has produced a network of three-lane highways enabling cars and heavy lorries to travel swiftly and safely across the country from north to south and from east to west. That network is being added to continuously. Its equipment is being updated according to the latest technology available. It is being supplemented by much-improved trunk roads. Bypasses take transport out of cities and town centres, which is why we in Newbury look forward eagerly to the Department of Transport decision about the future of the bypass round that town.
Better roads ease the frustration and stress which are factors in the safety with which long-distance drivers carry out their duties. Their vehicles have improved enormously. Anti-jack-knifing equipment is becoming more standard, and the tachometer has done much to regulate drivers' hours. But in my opinion one of the most badly needed improvements is really effective spray-reducing equipment. Those of us who drive on motorways know that when passing a lorry in very wet weather one experiences a moment of almost blind driving—a moment of hazard. I long for that problem to be solved, but I presume that it is much more intractable to solve than to state. I know that numerous Ministers of Transport have referred to it in the past but so far we do not seem to have produced an effective remedy.
Speed remains a serious factor, particularly for heavy lorries, which still travel too fast for rapid braking in an emergency. A recent editorial in Commercial Motor stated:
Speed kills just like tiredness, complacency and bad habits when you are thundering down the M6 in bad weather with 38 tonnes of steel around you and enough kinetic energy to flatten a small block of flats.
Like my observations, that comment and an article in the current edition of Care on the Road make me wonder why we are hesitant about introducing legislation to install speed limiters in trucks. By the same token, why do

motoring correspondents dwell on the top speed and acceleration of new cars as though they were some of the more important features of vehicles?
In west Berkshire, as no doubt in other rural areas, riding has become a popular pastime, and meeting a group of young people and children on their ponies in narrow country lanes is an everyday hazard. So far, we haw been spared a car plunging into such a group, but the speed at which some motorists drive down those lanes fills me with foreboding. I always consider that there are not enough rider warning signs.
Then there are the villages which lack the requisite frontage of houses to enable them to be considered for a speed limit. I refer to villages such as Woolharnpton, Chapel Row and Wickham in my constituency. I know the argument about distance from one end of a village to the other having to be a certain length if vehicles are to have time to slow down to a 30 mph speed limit for more than a minute or two, but what about installing sleeping policemen, clearly sign-posted on village entry and exit roads? Motorists do not speed over them, and no police are required to enforce them. If humps are considered to be too much of an obstacle, what thought is being given to slow-down strips across roads, giving an effect like a cattle grid or a level crossing—something that will cause a motorist voluntarily to slow down because of the discomfort which he must suffer if he drives his car too fast over them?
I hope that the Minister will say something tonight which will enable me to send a positive reply to one of my constituents, Miss Maisie Debell of Wickham, who recently wrote to me stating:
Large, high-sided lorries, besides cars and goods vehicles, race along this road"—
that is, the B4000—
from about 5 am until evening on weekdays. For those of us who live in houses on this road the noise is very intrusive. Crossing the road can also be a real hazard, especially for the elderly.
I have touched on road transport and some of the problems that it imposes in terms of the safety of heavy lorries on motorways driving at speed or in very wet conditions and the safety of those who use our roads as pedestrians or riders. As I said, the debate is about transport safety—a wide issue—so I hope that I may be forgiven if I switch from road vehicles to civil airlines, and refer particularly to today's report on the 1985 fire disaster in a British Airways 737 in Manchester which cost the lives of 55 people.
I saw the burnt-out fuselage of that aircraft at the air accident investigation centre at Farnborough some years ago, and it was a horrific sight. Undoubtedly, and as a result of the report, we will hear much about smoke hoods to give passengers a chance to breathe when a cabin is ablaze, as we will hear about water sprinklers to quench a cabin fire for long enough to let passengers escape. In considering the proposals, the first thing that we must remember is that, when fire breaks out in the cabin of an aircraft, the instinctive reaction of any passenger is to get out as quickly as possible.
For that reason, I doubt the value of smoke hoods. I do not believe that passengers will look for smoke hoods, either in the backs of seats or anywhere else around them. They will want to get out of the aircraft, for, quite simply, panic seizes passengers when there are fires on aircraft. People clamber over seats; they will do anything to get away from the inferno that is so quickly produced inside


the airliner's cabin. To be effective, smoke hoods would need a measure of self-control that I believe would only be present if the fire were slow burning and therefore some warning of it could be given.
On the other hand, water sprinklers would be automatic. The water sprinklers that have been described to me in detail would weigh the equivalent of about two passengers. That is the number of passengers that an airliner the size of a 737 would have to forgo if it were to have that sprinkler system fitted. The system would require three additional water tanks and three pumps. The system could use the existing water system that currently provides the drinking water in an aircraft. That sprinkling system would cost about £250,000 for each aircraft. Its effect would be to dampen seats and upholstery to a point where flammability would be greatly reduced—at least long enough to evacuate the aircraft. We should not forget that the Civil Aviation Authority claims that the normal time needed to evacuate an airliner is 90 seconds. That is the interval in which passengers should be able to get out of an airliner's cabin.
In the Manchester disaster, time was of the essence. With hindsight, I do not think that any of us can doubt that the pilot made a serious error of judgment when he tried to take the aircraft off the runway into one of the side areas. He should not have placed his aircraft before his passengers. He should have got those people out as quickly as he could.
We know now that the emergency exits in that aircraft were impeded by rows of seats. I am glad that British Airways has now taken those rows of seats out and that the exits are therefore easy to reach. We also know that the galleys at the flight-deck end of the cabin created the situation where only one passenger at a time could go through the gap. As one of the exit doors was temporarily blocked, the result was that people were queuing up to get out of that aeroplane, which was, of course, on fire at the tail end.
The interior furnishings in that aircraft gave off the most dreadfully noxious fumes that undoubtedly contributed to the high death rate. CAA regulations have now made it obligatory for airlines to change those furnishings to ones that are much less likely either to catch fire or to give off such fumes.
As the report shows, and as is the case with all disasters, lessons have been learnt. As well as implementing the safety regulations, we need now to see whether we cannot vary the conditions laid down in the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accident) Regulations 1983, section 11 that provides for the inquiry procedures to be followed after an accident. I believe I am right in saying that the report on Manchester was in fact completed at least a year ago, but that the procedure requires that anyone implicated in an accident report and whose reputation might be adversely affected by it should be shown a pre-publication copy and given the chance to request changes. That appears to be denying the speedy publication of documents that materially affect transport safety and the well-being of the travelling public. I suggest that that regulation is reconsidered with a view to amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) on his success in the ballot and on the subject chosen for debate.
While I recognise the national tragedies and disasters that have been referred to, there is a threat to the health and safety of our people which has never been highlighted, but that threat is apparent in my constituency.
Some hon. Members may recall that on 19 June 1984 1 drew the House's attention to the problems of Knottingley, a town in my constituency, arising out of the transportation of coal from the Selby coalfield to the Drax power station. I informed the House that, in the mid-1970s, 120 merry-go-round trains a day used the level crossing at Knottingley to take coal to the Drax and Eggborough power stations.
Such trains continue to pass within 5 or 10 m of people's front and back doors. It has been estimated that the barriers at the level crossing are closed 21 per cent. of the time, and that therefore the 2,500 vehicles using that road are held up for a corresponding period. Given that heavy lorries will wait at the crossing in cold weather with their engines running, one can appreciate the environmental danger that that poses—we all know about carbon dioxide and greenhouse effect—and the effect that such engine fumes can have on health.
Before I first drew attention to the problem, two major developments had already affected it. In March 1976 planning permission was granted to develop the Selby coalfield and in July 1977 the decision was taken to develop the Drax B coal-fired power station. At that time it was expected that the number of MGR trains moving through Knottingley would increase by 33 per cent. One can appreciate that such an increase would add to the difficulties at the level crossing and the problems faced by the residents near that crossing. Those were the self-same people who already had to put up with the problems associated with the Selby development.
Now 180 MGR trains a day pass within 5 to 10 m of people's homes. I have sat in people's homes when those trains have shunted by; their houses have shaken and their televisions have not worked. One can smell the fumes in the bedrooms.
The problems faced by the people of Knottingley are the more regrettable because there is an alternative. The Selby coalfield has an expected life of 60 years, but the total cost of transporting the coal could be halved because another route could be used that is half the distance of the present one and hardly passes through residential areas. It is hardly efficient that British Coal or the CEGB should pay increased costs over the next 60 years just because someone will not agree to capital investment for the shorter line.
Many meetings have been held over the years to try to safeguard my constituents' health and safety, but with little result. We talk about safety on British Rail and other forms of transport; it is crazy to transport coal twice the necessary distance, with all the consequential fuel consumption and damage to the environment.
Recently, the situation has become much worse. I have received a letter from the deputy director of administration in the north Yorkshire area of British Coal, following my lobbying of the corporation to put the matter right. He suggested that the cost would fall on the CEGB, not on


British Coal. Whoever pays—and the financial aspect must surely be considered—the health and safety of my constituents are at stake.
The length of the line could be halved by introducing what is known locally as the Barlow link. That could be done without much capital expenditure. The money is a small price to pay for the health and safety of my constituents. Recently, £800 million has been found by British Rail or the Government to protect the environment for the people of Kent—and, some would say, of Dulwich—during and after construction of the Channel tunnel. That colossal sum was found almost overnight.
The health of my constituents has been deteriorating over the years. Some of them are becoming elderly, and we already have chest disease problems in our mining community. This problem will make those diseases worse. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider what he can do to alleviate our problem. Financial efficiency alone would suggest that colossal savings could be made over the next 60 years. Electricity generation and transport costs between Selby and Drax B power station would be lower. I hope that the Minister will help us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the three hon. Members who are rising if I say that the Front Bench spokesmen will seek to rise at 11.23 pm. That leaves nearly half an hour for the hon. Members who want to speak.

Mr. Roger King: I tried to intervene during the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) who initiated the debate. I congratulate him on doing so, but I was a little confused about some of the points he was trying to make.
Principally, I am persuaded, certainly by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), that the underground rail link to the Channel tunnel, which will consist of very high-speed trains, is a safe concept, but I am a little concerned that the proposed Channel link extension, if it is underground, according to what the hon. Gentleman said, may not be safe. The problems and the possible hazards which the under-Channel link might face were very well debated in Committee and on the Floor of this House, and I should have thought that we had probably overcome some of the fears that we might have had initially that such a system of underground transportation was open to certain dangers which could not be foreseen. I hope that, when the Channel link is constructed, as I am sure it will be, and if it is underground, it will be to the same high standards that we are currently ensuring and insisting upon in the Channel link which is now being built.
I congratulate British Rail on its safety record. It may seem strange to say so after three recent accidents, but it is probably one of the most densely used systems in the world, if not the most. Certainly, Network SouthEast trains travel along tracks with no more than a minute or so between each unit. It is a heavily trafficked system; it is also a high-speed system on some of our main arterial routes north of London. High speeds are reached, and at peak periods the separation between trains can be no more than three or possibly four minutes. That speaks volumes

for the advanced technology which British Rail has employed on these routes in terms of signalling and of the construction and use of the trains themselves.
After all, we have had a great deal of experience in building safe railways, having invented them, so it is not surprising that we have built up a highly efficient and highly safe rail system. It is an extra-special tragedy that the Clapham disaster occurred indirectly as a result of investment. It would not have happened had the old system been left in situ.
One of the great problems for the railways is that. when a new system is being modernised and installed at the weekend or during the night, it must be ready for use the following morning or the following Monday morning, because the public demand their trains and demand that that service is provided. That puts ever more responsibility upon the engineers working on the line and upon British Rail to see that the investment takes place safely. We must await the outcome of the inquiry to see what suggestions can be made in this respect.
Motorways are an area where we have to redouble our efforts on transport safety. Tragically, history tells us that we only learn by our mistakes. However much we might try to foresee them, mistakes occur and it is only when they occur that we can try to introduce systems which prevent them from happening again.
Last week, on the M6, four people were killed in a tragic pile-up involving heavy goods lorries and cars and a large number were injured—more, unfortunately, than were killed in the train accident in Glasgow. Yet such an accident on our motorways does not warrant a public inquiry and, as far as I know, there seems to be very little public effort to gain knowledge from these very bad accidents. The railways have a history of public inquiries after accidents. We should invite similar inquiries into bad motorway or road accidents to see what lessons we can learn.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that lorries should be fitted with speed limiters. The lighting systems on our heavy goods vehicles are very poor. Our continental cousins seem to light their vehicles like Christmas trees, and they can be seen from a considerable distance. Perhaps they overdo it but our system of lighting is very poor, even when it is all working, which it often is not. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that our heavy goods vehicles, when travelling in darkness, are well and truly lit up.
We should also look at a system for limiting traffic flows on our motorways. An experimental system of traffic lights has been installed on a motorway slip road in the west midlands in an attempt to reduce the amount of commuter traffic piling onto an overloaded motorway system. I look forward to the Department of Transport introducing such a system on a wider scale. Motorways are for national transportation and not really for commuter traffic. If we can discourage some of the commuter traffic safety will be increased.
Safety is of paramount importance to the airline industry. We know that that industry has a very good record for ensuring safe travel for its passengers. However, there has been an increase in scheduled and charter services. Given the likely growth, there will be difficulty in obtaining new aircraft to meet that growth. There is a five or six-year waiting list for some new aircraft and that delay places greater importance on the maintenance of existing aircraft. Over the past few months, we have questioned the


practicalities of flying elderly jets, some up to 20 years old. We have questioned whether those elderly jets are strong enough and meet our present high standards of safety.
I do not doubt that our elderly jets are maintained properly. However, the user—the passenger—is entitled to know the type of aircraft that he is flying on and its age. Is it not possible for aircraft to have hull certificates which can be renewed every five years or every year as the aircraft gets older? Is it not possible for the passenger to see as he gets on the aircraft a kind of MOT certificate which shows that the aircraft has received a close inspection, bearing in mind the aircraft's age? That would do much to calm passengers' fears about aircraft. After all, we often do not know the age of the aircraft that we are about to fly in. The passenger is entitled to that information.
In the not too distant future, I hope that there will be a certificate showing a breakdown of an aircraft's maintenance and inspection history. That certificate should be obvious to the user. In the remainder of this debate, I am sure that we will hear many other suggestions about transport safety and I will listen avidly to them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken on board some of the points that I have made.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) for raising this topic tonight. I respond immediately to the invitation from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who referred to investment in the railways. It is true that there has been some investment in figure terms, but there has not been much human investment.
People do not realise that a railway will not run at all, let alone safely, without the good will of the operatives, teamwork, discipline, long experience and understanding of the details of the job and confidence in management. All those factors together provide morale and satisfaction. It is common knowledge that all those factors have sadly been in decline over the past few years no matter what investment has been made.
I want to raise several matters relating to London Underground, and I am glad that the Minister for Public Transport is present. He represents the northern end of the Piccadilly line and I represent part of the eastern section of the District line. We are therefore representatives of the millions of people who travel in London who rely on the London Underground.
By chance I sent a letter today to the Secretary of State for Transport raising these matters. After the Clapham rail disaster, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would consider London Underground's signal organisation. I received a letter dated 25 January from the Minister for Public Transport. I understand that there has been a change in organisation in the customer-contractor system in the signal department of London Underground. I take objection to that change.
The Minister's reply states:
You will have seen from my Answer to your recent question (copy attached) that this is not a matter in which we are involved. I understand nevertheless that the control of signalling equipment procedures remains as strict as ever under the new arrangements and that safety standards are in no way compromised.

I disagree with the Minister and hope that he will reconsider that reply.
My understanding is that the customer-contractor relationship that now applies throughout London Transport, including the signal section, was specifically required by the Secretary of State for Transport. I ask the Minister, as I asked his right hon. Friend, to reconsider his letter and to invite the railway inspectorate to review the new customer-contractor system in respect of London Underground, to take evidence, to report, and to publish the results.
The second matter I want to raise is of even greater importance. It concerns the extension on London Underground of one-person operation, or OPO, to deep tubes other than the Victoria line, which was from the beginning engineered and built on a different electrical system, whereby the driver takes on the guard's responsibilities. Elsewhere, the driver takes on the guard's responsibilities while still driving. That is an important distinction.
When, in the summer of 1987, London Transport wanted to introduce OPO on the tunnel section of the Piccadilly line—part of which runs through the Minister's constituency—I expressed my objections to London Transport's chairman at that time, Sir Keith Bright. I did so particularly in respect of the safety procedure known as leapfrogging. Because of the limitations on time, I shall not describe it in detail, but it involves a complex operation that is used when a train, often fully loaded and crowded, stops in the middle of a tunnel because the driver is unable to operate it for some reason. It involves a complicated system for dealing with the trains that are following behind, for a train being left in charge of a nominated passenger, and so on. I believe that that practice is inherently dangerous and wrong.
Accordingly, in August 1987 I wrote to Sir Keith Bright suggesting that that practice was dangerous. When I first heard of the King's Cross disaster, I feared that it had something to do with that obnoxious system. It was not—but it was due to something even worse. In any event, on 20 May 1988, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport for details of the statutory rules relating to those operations. The then Minister of State for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), replied:
Section 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 makes London Regional Transport statutorily responsible for the safe running of its railways. There are no statutory rules relating specifically to one-person-operation. However, the criteria adopted for one-person-operation were drawn up by London Underground Limited in consultation with the Railway Inspectorate."—[Official Report, 20 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 614–615.]
I emphasise the words
in consultation with the Railway Inspectorate"—
not with its permission. I find that very worrying. Anybody who knows anything about railway operations, particularly in tunnels, will not—I tell the hon. Member for Northfield—be satisfied.
After the Clapham rail disaster, I wrote to London Underground Ltd.'s current managing director, Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe, asking whether he is satisfied with the OPO system and with leap frogging in particular. He replied:
We are satisfied that one-person operation of deep-level tube lines does not give rise to safety hazards and leap-frogging' is an effective and safe procedure with the facilities provided.
I disagree. Mr. Tunnicliffe adds, fairly:


if a manifestly better method of dealing with operator failure was to be indentified, we would certainly adopt it.
I believe that there is—having a guard on the train.
On 22 November 1988, a letter appeared in The Guardian from a tube train driver who would not give his name because he was summarily told by a London Transport official that if he—the driver—was unhappy with the system, that official would be pleased to accept his resignation. The driver wrote:
On August 11, 1983, a fire between Wood Green and Bounds Green on the Piccadilly Line trapped 750 passengers for 30 minutes. No lives were lost. If this had happened after One Person Operation had been introduced, I fear it would have been a different matter. Any passengers behind the fire would have been left to their own devices. My main worry is not if a disaster happens on an OPO train but when it happens, as happen it surely will.
Well, it might; I do not say that it definitely will. However, I say to the Minister—who, happily, is the Member of Parliament of many who travel on the Piccadilly line—that we must not risk it.
I also ask the Minister to request the railways inspectorate to examine the OPO system on non-Victoria line deep-level tubes, to take evidence from the men on the job and others who have been concerned, and to report. I do not think that the system should continue without being given a clean slate by the inspectorate, and I should be very surprised if the inspectorate could give it.
We cannot put the travelling public of London at risk by putting one man on a deep-level tube train. I do not think that that is right, and I hope that the House agrees with me.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) on initiating the debate. On the day of publication of the report on the Manchester international airport disaster, it has been left to my hon. Friend to provide any opportunity for hon. Members to debate the report. Is it not a disgrace that on the day of publication—three and a half years after the tragedy—the Minister has failed to provide an opportunity for adequate discussion?
As honorary parliamentary adviser to Greater Manchester fire authority and a former member of the authority, I recognised—as did others involved in the process of recommendations to the coroner, the CAA and the accident investigation branch—the harrowing and humbling experience brought about by the disaster, in which 54 people perished and the injuries of another led to death. The public attitude at first was one of admiration for the emergency services, thankfulness for the survival of those who lived and concern for grieving relatives. During the ensuing months and years, however, the feeling changed to anger about the delay in consideration of what had caused the accident, who was responsible and what should be done to ensure that it would never happen again.
If such an appalling tragedy happened now, the loss of life would be as great as it was on 22 August 1985. Despite the reports from the coroner and Greater Manchester fire chief, Tony Parry, the major recommendations have not yet been implemented. Ministers have had the report on their desks for at least 12 months, but it has not been published—not just because of the necessity for those who are named to have an opportunity to consider the report, to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) referred.
I know, from my experience on the fire authority., about the intransigent response of the industry and the CAA to some of the proposals in the authority's and the coroner's reports. In private discussions, those bodies attempted to ensure that many of the proposals in the report published today would not be implemented. It is an outrage and a scandal that the initial criterion should be finance rather than the lessons to be learned from the report and the action that should now be taken.
There were two main factors in the Manchester airport deaths: the rapid and severe involvement of the passenger cabin compartment in the fire, and restricted means of escape from the aircraft. Since the fire, two minimal measures have been introduced. The first was the removal of one seat next to the over-wing exit, after persistent pressure from Mr. Parry and others. The CAA and the industry did not make such a concession willingly. Only following report after report and letter after letter did it respond to the requirement. The second measure was the provision of emergency lighting at floor level.
On 27 January 1987, Mr. Parry reported to the authority that in his view recommendations for overall fire safety should include fire exits and routes to them, smoke hoods and water-spray systems.
The report continued:
With regard to means of escape, there are two ways of tackling this. Firstly, provide additional exists and unobstructed routes to them, so that people can leave the aircraft before they are subject to hazardous conditions. Alternatively, provide a system of protection for the passengers which will extend their survivability. Smoke hoods have received much publicity as far as the latter option goes, but they are a theoretical solution to a very real problem and do not take account of the many factors of human behaviour involved in incidents like Manchester. Death from toxic fumes generally comes before death from burns or heat, but in fire like Manchester, one is not very far behind the other and if escape routes for people wearing smoke hoods are not significantly improved, you will just be replacing one way of dying by another.
That is what Tony Parry said on 27 January. It was a follow-up to various reports to appropriate authorities.
In lay person's language, the fire chief was saying that smoke hoods would not have saved a single life in the Manchester airport disaster for three main reasons—the internal construction of the passenger cabins, the displacement of the exits and the access of flames to the fuselage.
According to Mr. Parry's report of 27 January:
Water spray systems have been demonstrated to extend the time that people can safely stay on the aircraft and, if it is impractical to improve exits from the aircraft, this is the best solution. It is independent of passenger activity and is unaffected by human behaviour."—
a point made graphically by the hon. Member for Newbury—
It contains fire development on the aircraft and prevents smoke and flames from a fire outside the aircraft entering the fuselage.
The evidence in that report was available and submitted to the coroner's investigations. The coroner gave it total support, and in the past three and a half years there has been a sustained campaign by Mr. Parry as a professional fire officer, and fire services throughout the United Kingdom responsible for fire safety at airport'., to put pressure on the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that those recommendations are implemented in the forseeable future. Even the report published today, which supports the theories put forward by Mr. Parry, states that investigations have to continue.
The technology has been developed and can be implemented, but the problem lies in the will of the passenger carriers in the civil aviation industry to implement it. They want to spend less money on overall safety at the expense of passengers. The report could have been implemented more than 12 months ago in national and international passenger fleets.
It is important that the issue is not brushed under the carpet and the report put on the shelf. We owe it to the families of the 55 people who perished and the millions of people who use the aircraft industry each year.
I hope that the Minister apologises to the House for the sneaky way in which the report was published today, and for neglecting to provide appropriate time for a debate in the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr Morris) will raise the matter in an Adjournment debate on Thursday but that alone is inadequate because of the nature and the ferocity of the disaster at Manchester airport on 22 August 1985. We require the Minister to provide appropriate time to debate the report and to ensure that it is implemented as quickly as possible.

Mr John Prescott (Kinston upon Hull, East): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) for raising a very important issue which concerns the House and the country at large. In the past two years there have been a unprecedented number of transport tragedies in shipping, in rail, in aviation and on the roads, and there is considerable concern about standards of safety and the role of the Department of Transport. The Department has an unenviable record of being obsessed with privatisation, competition, the market system, economy and efficiency, all of which have played a part in reducing the level of safety and have contributed to some of the tragedies the past two years. I shall develop those points further in the course of my speech.
The debate has been highlighted by two incidents unconnected with it. One was the petition presented by 25,000 people complaining bitterly about the rundown of the coastguard services, and hon. Members have met the coastguards today to receive the petition. The petition demands that the Department reverse the decision about cuts in coastguard stations and coastguards. For an island nation to do without its coastguard service is totally unacceptable. The Government wish to reduce the service solely for economic reasons. That petition was presented on a day when three ships sank around our coasts. They were Panamanian-registered ships. We have lost 1,000 ships from the British Merchant Navy. They have been replaced by Panamanian vessels which are lost at four times the rate of vessels belonging to traditional maritime nations. It is cheaper to employ Panamanian vessels, but the cost is actually greater in terms of the loss of vessels and lives. That is a familiar theme.
Today, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the report has been published on the terrible accident at Manchester airport on 22 August 1985. It is deplorable that it has taken three and a half years to produce that report. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is a reflection on the Civil Aviation Authority and on the

Department, which has been responsible for its own investigation, that we have not heard why the report was delayed. The petition about the coastguard service and the delay in publishing the report on the Manchester airport crash are two examples of the problems at the heart of transport safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made a powerful case about feelings in Manchester about the delay in publishing the air crash report. Is the Minister aware that a carbon copy fire took place in a plane at Prestwick in 1977, and that the report produced in 1979 predicted that the same would happen again unless some of its recommendations were implemented? Those recommendations were not implemented and there was a further tragedy at Manchester. Is the Minister aware of the earlier report, and will he learn any lessons from the Manchester report? The three-year delay reflects the powerful interests behind the scenes—the commercial interests of operators and manufacturers concerned to ensure that whatever criticisms are made do not reflect upon them.
One criticism of the present inquiry system is that all inquiries should be open and public so that there can be proper examination. The Government have done that after the recent rail tragedies. Secret inquiries are not acceptable. One can see the conflict of economic interests and safety. For example, because there were more seats on the aeroplane, the exits from the plane were blocked. That was a clear indication of economic factors taking priority over safety. That is unacceptable, as is the conflict over smoke hoods and the buck-passing between the CAA and the Department of Transport. [Interruption.] That is one of the interesting conflicts. The fire brigade people are talking about the difficulties—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Public Transport would listen to what is being said instead of rabbiting on, he might learn a thing or two. There is concern about the conflict and the legitimate arguments of both sides about the use of smoke hoods. When, after three years of inquiry, the chief fire officer at Manchester airport complains bitterly that he has not been adequately consulted, that is a matter of concern.
The rail crashes at Clapham, Purley and Glasgow highlight the problem of lack of resources to deal with safety. We have also had the plane tragedies at Lockerbie and the Ml, the problems about airport security, as well as the pile-up on the M6. These remind us that confidence in safety in all areas of transport has been very much undermined. Then there was King's Cross and Zeebrugge. In a short period there has been unprecedented loss of life in shipping, aviation and railways. Moreover, as the inquiries show, a common theme runs through all the disasters.
The Sheen inquiry into the loss of the vessel at Zeebrugge clearly showed that there was sloppy management and that financial considerations resulted in ships running fuller and going for a faster turn-round. We have seen some of the problems arising from that attitude. The Department received complaints about lights on the bridge and about the run down in the number of marine inspectors. All these things are signs of the climate of reduced concern for safety. The Minister himself, in reply to a parliamentary question, admitted that even after the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster the number of ferry fires has increased four fold in the past year. That is alarming, and it justifies the concern of the people on strike in Dover. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is


not in the House to raise some of the points that are worrying his constituents, but no doubt his mind is exercised on other areas.
As to the loss of the Derbyshire, it was six years before the Department conducted an inquiry, and the report which was produced recently has given satisfaction to nobody. Under the new inquiry rules that are being introduced, the Department is not prepared to ensure that all reports are made public, but it is prepared to select the people who are to give evidence. That is causing great concern in the shipping industry.
As for the air crash at Lockerbie, the Secretary of State has admitted that he received information about the bomb inquiry but decided not to alert the British Airports Authority about the threat to the aircraft and the need to increase security. The Secretary of State has an awful lot to answer for. It is not sufficient for him to go on television and say that if the question had been put to him in the debate in this House he would have told hon. Members that he had that information. It was cardinal information about which he misled the House.
There is a lot to be explained. The relatives are demanding an explanation from the Secretary of State, who has so far failed to give a full account of the circumstances. As the Select Committee report on aviation security pointed out, the break-up of the police control and the airport fund to finance security shows that the Department played a major part in reducing safety, and all for economic reasons. Economy and efficiency have been allowed to override safety considerations.
On the subject of heavy lorries, the Minister knows of the complaints that his Department's inspectors have been denied the resources to institute prosecutions against lorry owners who overload their vehicle. That, too, has been reported in the press. According to his own examiners, because the Department refused to co-operate in pursuing cases in the courts, the cases were handed to the Yorkshire police, who did prosecute. Drivers were fined, and directors were given prison sentences. If the matter had been left to the Department, nothing would have been done because saving money took priority over safety.
A recent report on the bus industry shows that the traffic commissioners are extremely concerned that, owing to privatisation and deregulation in the industry, we are beginning to see more prosecutions arising from the operation of unsafe buses. It is a matter of concern that, after just one year of operation, the Department's own inspectors should be so worried.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) mentioned British Rail's safety record. It is still a very good record, as I constantly state, but the statistics now admitted by the Government show that the number of accident deaths on the railways has increased by about 30 per cent. since 1982, while the number of collisions and derailments has gone up by nearly 20 per cent. Those are alarming increases—and the figures were given by the railway inspectors themselves—and a matter for great concern. There was an improvement every year up to 1982, but that situation has been reversed. It is right that we should seek an explanation for that.
The reason for the reversal is beginning to come out in some of the inquiry reports. In the case of Clapham we hear of signal failure. In that regard, why was the automatic system for stopping trains not installed? Mr. Stanley Hall, who was in charge of signals investment over this period, says that the reason for the failure to install

that system was that the Government were tight-fisted with their money—I refer not to capital investment but to the revenue needed to employ people for installation and operation—and Mr. Hall should know, because he was doing the job. That probably explains why drivers are increasingly being blamed for going through red lights and causing accidents.
Human error undoubtedly contributes, but in considering the diamond crossing at the Glasgow incident, I am led to ask whether the Minister is aware that a carbon copy collision of two freight trains, in exactly the same circumstances, occurred a few years ago? Did his inspectors read that report and then say to British Rail, "You must not take a leg out of the diamond crossing system because it may lead to a collision on the line" because that is precisely what happened at Glasgow? I f the crossings had remained the same, the accident could not have happened, so why was that leg of the diamond crossing taken out? The answer is that it would save time and manpower on maintenance. That is putting economic considerations above safety priorities and it has been brought about by the financial climate engendered by the Government in seeking to reduce public support for the industry so that our railways are run on a shoestring compared with those of most other countries.
The influence of that financial climate can also be seen in the Underground, where the police were reduced and the Guardian Angels offered to provide security. Station staff have not been available and that, too, has decreased the security for passengers. Those problems were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The Fennell report reveals that the financial climate led to managers not bringing forward the removal of wooden cladding on the escalators, thus leading to the King's Cross disaster. I could give the Minister any number of quotations to that effect. Yet the Government keep coming to the House and suggesting that they can find no connection between the lack of resources and falling standards of safety. Desmond Fennell refused to receive evidence on the point, saying that it would be ultra vires, but I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will eventually be a debate on the King's Cross Underground fire because the relatives are demanding it. It is a long, time since the report was produced and the financial climate affecting safety is now critical.
Recently I met the firemen who have been looking at the Underground system and who have seen many fires since that tragedy. They have told me that there is great resistance to the use of fire certification on our Underground system. Fennell recommended fire practices so that we could find out the problems and get used to giving a greater priority to fire prevention, but despite the Fennell recommendation that there should be one such practice every six months firemen are still being denied the facilities to conduct those exercises because London Underground says that it would be inconvenient, for passengers. Such practices happen all the time on the Paris Metro, but here passenger convenience is apparently put before safety as a priority.
That is precisely what has come out at the Clapham inquiry. Although Sir Robert Reid challenges me about it, he admits, possibly with hindsight, that passenger convenience was put before the safety priority. That is unacceptable, but it is a proposition that we hear constantly from the chairmen of such industries.
Having mentioned Sir Robert Reid I should add that I find it deplorable that British Rail has rushed to see drivers who are injured and in shock, only to blame them for human error. What about management error? What about management greed and cuts in resources? What about the management allowing safety standards to deteriorate on the pretext of passenger convenience, or whatever other reason? Such attitudes and practices are unacceptable.
One shining example that we must mention and commend has been the outstanding work of the emergency services. When one compares that with the record of the Department of Transport, one realises that the Government have presided over a history of massive tragedies in our transport industry and have pursued a policy which has contributed to those tragedies. The Government's obsession with privatisation, profit and cost-cutting while seeking to maintain economy and efficiency has been at the direct expense of safety. The public are prepared to pay more for higher safety standards. They do not accept the Government's priorities and they believe that the Government no longer give proper priority to safety. The public will be giving their own answers on that soon enough.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) on securing the opportunity to debate this subject.
We today received a letter from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and we shall consider carefully what he says about one-person operation, leapfrogging, customer-contractor relations and signalling. The railways inspectorate is reviewing Underground safety and will report shortly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is not dissatisfied with one-person operation, but I shall review the points made by the hon. Gentleman and get in touch with him.
In the space of three months, the country has witnessed five tragic accidents involving our railways and aircraft, at Clapham, Lockerbie, Kegworth, Purley and Bellgrove. Mercifully, serious accidents such as these are rare, which makes them all the more shocking when they occur. In each case, people want to know what went wrong. We are taking appropriate steps to secure the answers to those questions. The formal arrangements have been explained to the House. It is important that the inquiries should be completed as swiftly as possible. To underline the importance of that, my right hon. Friend has decided today that the Bellgrove accident should be investigated by the chief inspecting officer of railways. He will undertake the inquiry instead of Major King, who must give priority over the next few weeks to action arising from the Fennell report.
The progress of the investigations has been reported to the House to the extent that it has been possible to do so without prejudging the final outcome, so I shall not rehearse those points this evening. My main concern will be whether this run of five serious accidents is symptomatic of a more deep-seated problem with the transport system, which has been the theme of a number of speeches this evening.
Rail is the safest form of transport after air—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). In terms of fatal accidents there is little to choose between travel by rail and air. In each case, there has been one fatal accident for every 300 billion passenger kilometres travelled. Rail has a far better safety record than any form of road transport, and that cannot be stressed too often or too firmly. It would be a pity if passengers were misled into thinking that it would be safer to travel by car than by train; it certainly would not. Historically, fatalities per passenger mile are about 20 times worse for travel by car than by rail or air.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth was worried about the safety of the Channel tunnel link. Many Opposition Members badly want the link and have been pressing for it to be in a tunnel. The railways inspectorate has given its view, and it wants cross tunnels, walkways, fire doors and other safety precautions.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has my sympathy for a problem that he has pursued doggedly for many years in the House in the interests of his constituents. The safety of transport by road would be worse that by rail, but if investment by British Rail is necessary it can be made without ministerial approval. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of British Rail.
As fatal accidents caused by crashes are so rare, it is difficult to establish a short-term trend, but the long-term trend is clear—rail travel is becoming safer. Improvements between the 1950s and 1980s is marked. Between 1969 and 1988, significant collisions decreased by about a quarter in the latest five-year period compared with the first. The number of significant derailments is down from over 1,500 between 1969 and 1973 to 684 between 1984–88. The improvement is not smooth and regular, and figures vary erratically from year to year.
I sincerely trust that the accidents at Clapham, Purley and Bellgrove will prove to be a bad patch from which the railways will quickly recover. Such incidents have occurred before; 1957, 1967 and 1975 were years of exceptionally high numbers of deaths on the railways, but they did not mark a deterioration in railway safety, which continued to improve after those unusual years, as it had before.
It is wrong and irresponsible to suggest that a run of three serious rail accidents must mean that the underlying trend has changed abruptly, although it is right and proper to consider the circumstances of each accident to see whether there is a common thread. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiries into these crashes, but at this stage it is difficult to see any common thread. As the immediate causes of the crashes differ, attention has inevitably focused on the possibility that there is something more fundamentally wrong with British Rail.
Let me dispose of the wholly specious argument, which we have heard again this evening, that there is a decline in safety standards within British Rail caused by underinvestment. Under the last Labour Government, the peak of investment by British Rail—the hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned this point—was £474 million at today's prices. Last year, British Rail invested £517 million, and this year it has budgeted for £560 million. The level of investment in the coming years will be higher still. Nobody is preventing British Rail from investing in anything, least of all safety. There has been confusion with the public service obligation grant, which is a subsidy reflecting the losses made by the railways. The years of the


highest public service obligation grant have often coincided with the lowest investment years, and vice versa. It is absurd to believe that only loss-making industries invest.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has recently spoken about working expenses on the railways. They have been at broadly the same level—between £3 billion and £3·5 billion in real terms—every year since 1975. On Network SouthEast in recent years, there has been a marked upward trend. It has also been alleged that British Rail has neglected safety in favour of other priorities. British Rail has many other issues to engage its attention, such as improving the quality of service, increasing productivity and coping with the growth in demand for rail transport, especially on Network SouthEast but it has never lost sight of the fact that running a safe railway system is its first priority. For the avoidance of doubt, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reinforced that point to the British Rail board in the light of the Fennell report on the causes of the King's Cross fire.

Mr. Prescott: By letter?

Mr. Portillo: In person.
It is suggested that congestion causes accidents. Obviously, an accident involving a train carrying many passengers may result in higher casualties than an accident involving a train which is half empty, but there is no evidence to suggest that overcrowding causes accidents. The railways inspectorate has made it clear that it does not see a link. That leaves the possibility that overcrowding on a train may aggravate the injuries sustained by individual passengers. That is a point into which Mr. Hidden and his assessors will look further if they judge it to be relevant to their inquiries.
As far as we can judge, air transport is becoming safer year by year. There are far too few accidents in United Kingdom air space to allow us to establish a meaningful trend. However, the number of air accidents worldwide shows a clear downward trend. Within the United Kingdom, there has been a reduction in the number of air-misses over the past 10 years. The number of risk-bearing airmisses has declined more sharply, from 40 in 1978 to 13 in 1987. That improvement is all the more impressive as it has taken place against the background of a 70 per cent. increase in the amount of air travel undertaken. The improvement is largely attributable to technological advances and is a tribute to those who design, build and maintain aircraft and to those who provide air traffic control services. In sum, we are as confident as we can be that air transport is safe and becoming safer.
The tragedies at Lockerbie and Kegworth, appalling though they were, do not change those underlying facts. There is no doubt in my mind that those two accidents are not symptomatic of a general deterioration in air transport safety and I do not see any link between the causes of those two tragedies. Any lessons to be learned from the Lockerbie disaster will be in the area of airport and airline security. My right hon. Friend has taken steps to improve domestic and international security and the Select Committee on Transport will have a chance to question him on such matters when he gives evidence to it next week.
I cannot say much now about the lessons to be learned about Kegworth because the air accident investigation branch has yet to issue its interim bulletin on the crash. I note the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) about the time taken to issue the report on the Manchester air disaster. I must point out that the causes of the accident were complex and it was important to learn all the right lessons. The length of time taken was untypical of air accident investigation branch reports.
I must also stress that the Civil Aviation Authority has already taken action on many of the recommendations of the air accident investigation branch and it has not been delayed by the passing of the report to those people affected. There is no question of having delayed he taking of remedial measures. The Civil Aviation Authority has initiated a comprehensive research programme to investigate the introduction on civil aircraft of cabin water-spray systems. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Makerfield are concerned about that point.

Mr. McCartney: The Department knew what had caused the deaths after the coroner's inquiry report. The Department knew then what needed to be done, yet it has taken the Department until today to issue its response. That is outrageous. There was no reason for the delay, other than that the CAA has been trying to bring pressure to bear behind the scenes to prevent an adequate report being presented to the House.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In the weeks and months following the accident, changes were made to the maintenance procedures for the Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines fitted to the aircraft, and to the methods of assessing the effect of repair schemes based on operators' fleet experiences with the engine. That is just one example of how we were getting on with things.
Understandably, much of our debate has been devoted to transport by rail and air, but some of my hon. Friends also have stressed the importance of road safety. There is good news to report to the House on road safety. The number of road deaths in 1987–5,125—was the lowest since 1954; it was down 5 per cent. compared with 1986. The total casualties are down 3 per cent. to 311,473. Pedestrian deaths are also down and in the first nine months of 1988 the number of deaths was down again by 3 per cent. The peak year for casualties was 1965 when there were 400,000 casualties and 8,000 deaths.
Although the number of vehicles has more than doubled and the total distance travelled has more than trebled since then, the number of deaths and injuries has fallen steadily, giving Britain one of the best road safety records in the world. But we still hope for considerable further improvement and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set the target of reducing casualties by one third—from 300,000 to 200,000 a year—by the year 2000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked about reducing spray from lorries. In 1984, regulations were made to require spray suppression equipment conforming to a British standard to be fitted to new motor lorries over 12 tonnes gross weight, to new trailers over 3·5 tonnes gross weight and to existing trailers in service over 16 tonnes gross weight. All these should now he fitted.


Regulations were made in 1988 to include a check of the equipment in the annual roadworthiness test. I hope that that will be of comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
My hon. Friend also asked whether speed limiting devices should be fitted to lorries. As he will know, they are being fitted to coaches under regulations made in 1988, and we shall consider whether they should be fitted to lorries if the present improvement in the behaviour of lorry drivers does not continue in future years.
All these road safety developments show that there is a need for publicity initiatives to change people's attitudes to key safety issues and to call for a new approach to road safety education. We need research into accident prevention measures, investment in safer road layouts, improvements in the design of vehicles and changes in our road traffic law. I have given a brief summary of developments in road safety partly to show how much is being done but also to show that we need to advance on many different fronts if we are to secure an improvement in road safety.
I suspect that precisely the same applies to rail, sea and air safety. The more closely one examines the problem, the clearer it becomes that sweeping generalisations and broad-brush solutions are irrelevant. I hope that that will be borne in mind in all our discussions of road safety in the weeks ahead, not least by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Orders of the Day — Anti-Social Tenants

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: When hon. Members speak of, or seek to legislate for, where and how people live, we talk of housing. We refer to houses and flats, sometimes to dwellings, and sometimes to units of accommodation. That is where we go wrong. For the people in them, they are their homes. For them, whether or not they own them, they are, or should be, precious to them—something worth caring about. But, for accommodation to be a home and not just a unit of accommodation, the occupier should have the right to peaceful occupation. A home that is affected by the anti-social behaviour of neighbours is not a home. Effectively, it is destroyed as such, and sometimes it is barely deserving of the title "a unit of accommodation".
Anti-social behaviour is a cancer in our housing estates, and in our tower blocks in particular. The problem is known to too many in our urban areas, and we have ducked and fudged the issue for years.
In 1981, we were rightly proud of our right-to-buy legislation. There has been no greater or beneficial move in good homemaking. We sought to be fair to those who either could not or did not want to buy. For the first time, we granted tenants real security of tenure. That, too, was a right and proper move, and, in normal circumstances, none would want to see that right diminished. But, in giving security of tenure to good tenants, we gave it to the troublemakers as well. Of course we can take them to court—that is, if there is the political will at local level so to do. I do not need to remind hon. Members just how difficult and how long-winded that process normally is.
Even when troublemakers are taken to court, they know, and the council knows that they know, that the council will rehouse them. Troublemakers raise the proverbial Harvey Smith, and the process starts all over again in some other part of town. No one should have the right to abuse security of tenure in that way and so conduct themselves as to deny their neighbours the right of peaceful occupation.
The problem is largely for local authorities, but it has a clear read-across to the generality of law and order. I urge the appropriate ministerial group to have a good hard look at the issue. Even if a complete answer cannot be found, let us at least do what we can.
Over half the tower blocks in Nottingham are in my constituency. In the Radford area, Buckland and Bladon courts have recently been in the local news. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently written to me on the subject. One family feels that they would be better off homeless back in Newcastle, where they came from, than to continue the nightmare that they currently suffer. According to a recent article in our local paper, the young wife said:
It starts about midnight"—
that is, the noise and the music—
and goes on until 7 or 8 am most nights of the week.
We can't sleep at night. And you can't even hear the television … I've been reduced to tears.
According to that article, the police have said that they do not have a soft policy to what we call blues parties—
They were treated in the same way as other noise complaints"—
but they admitted that there was a problem. That is a masterpiece of understatement.
There is a group of five other towers in the Lenton area of my constituency. All are structurally sound—excellent flats. But, through the activities of a few, four of those tower blocks are hell. The fifth is being protected by security and no doubt will be the envy of the other four until they too can be protected by a concierge and video system. That cannot be done too soon. Such protection should be a priority ahead of the present Labour city council's new build plan. The 50 new homes in that plan will serve housing needs much less than would immediate investment in security measures.
Those problems are certainly not confined to tower blocks. The problem pepper-pots all over our estates—low-rise flats, semis and detached property.
Two weeks ago my advice session was besieged by a dozen or more people at the end of their tether with worry and aggravation. I have been told that local officials are unable to get across to the culprits the strength of feeling of their neighbours and the distress that is being caused. As much as I sympathise with the officials, that simply will not do.
In June of 1985, I met city officers and we spoke of segregating the elderly from the under 40s. That policy has been applied and in some complexes it works very well. We spoke, too, at that meeting of action against certain tenants who lawfully take in lodgers, who, however, are often nothing more than a succession of boy friends. Action must be taken against the registered tenant even when it is the boy friend who is known to be the culprit, and that complicates and prevents an early solution.
The concierge and security approach is said to be expensive, but at least it works. In the long run I suspect that it will cost little more—or perhaps no more—and it will certainly cost less in human distress. There would certainly be less destruction of the flats, the common parts and the main doors to the tower blocks. A tenant's front door will not be kicked in each time that the difficult tenant forgets his key or, if a tenant has not bothered to tell his friend where the party will be, everyone will not be woken up at some unearthly hour until the right flat has been found.
I spoke earlier of political will. Councils do not, for example, enforce their own tenancy agreements. It is argued that when they try and the cases come to court, they find it difficult to get residents to appear as witnesses. I am not surprised, because I know of some of the threats that some of my constituents have had to suffer in those situations.
At the same 1985 meeting, officers of the city said that sanctions other than eviction should be available, but often I believe that that is the only sanction that some of those troublemakers understand.
What angers the honest law-abiding tenant most is the comment, "We can't do anything. Why don't you take them to court yourself?" I have enormous respect for our city's chief environmental health officer. I understand the difficult task he has, and I know that he meant well when in June 1985 he set out how tenants could take action under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 59. He wrote at that time:
The majority of such complaints relate to the playing of loud, amplified music at unsociable hours as well as associated noise from groups of people varying in size from 3 or 4 to several hundred congregating on one domestic premises.
He put it down to
differing life styles, unemployment and in some cases … commercial interests".

He was referring to blues parties. He said that those factors added to the
annoyance, discomfort, loss of sleep, intimidation and social pressures
on other tenants.
He went on:
The noise may be intermittent, irregular and as a result sometimes difficult to monitor to obtain evidence to take legal action under Section 58. In such cases it may be more appropriate for the complainants to take their own action by utilising the provisions of Section 59".
Should we really be expecting our residents to do that sort of work themselves? I believe that that is quite absurd and I share their view that they are entitled to the full protection of the law.
In March last year, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) responded to my pleas on this topic—

Mr. McCartney: They sacked her.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend was not sacked for this letter. In a letter to me, she said:
We specifically gave Councils the power therefore to go to court to seek their removal.
She was referring to those anti-social tenants. She said:
The relevant provision is now Ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. Where a 'tenant or a person residing in a dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours'.
My hon. Friend went on to outline that on those particular grounds
The Court does not have to satisfy itself … that in addition suitable alternative accommodation is available for the displaced tenant.
In those circumstances the court would accept that the tenant had made himself intentionally homeless and the local authority would
not be obliged to rehouse him.
Hence my reference to political will. I recognise that few councils, if any, will, on first conviction, seek not to rehouse. If the court thought that that might be the outcome it might not grant the eviction order, hence the lack of use of the special "ground 2" contained in the 1985 Act.
In 1987 my Conservative colleagues in Nottingham won control of the council and held it for but a brief 18 months. At least they had a stab at the problem when they set up the new housing management panel. That set out to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour and included under that heading, noise nuisance, dogs, vandalism, harassment and the illegal use of premises. It tried to offer the offender the chance to explain and/or to correct his or her conduct. At the end of the day, however, it is still down to political will to put the interests of the majority of our tenants before the conduct of the minority and to take that group to court.
Just three weeks ago I was grateful to Superintendent Edwards of the Nottinghamshire constabulary for organising a meeting in the Lenton area of my constituency to listen to tenants' complaints. He acknowledged the problems of late night parties—I do not mean one-offs. Such parties are not always formally blues parties, but they go on and on. He gave an undertaking that those who refuse
to accept the effect of their actions will have proceedings taken against them.
I know that Superintendent Edwards meant it when he gave that undertaking, but what will be the outcome? Has


the House given the courts the powers or even the understanding that they need to deal with the problem? Perhaps we should have special housing courts to deal with such matters.
One additional sanction should be given to local authorities, and the sooner the better—security of tenure should be forfeit. If a council feels morally bound to rehouse I do not seek to take that right away, but it should not be compelled to grant a further secure tenancy.
The knowledge that the council no longer has to take tenants to court to obtain eviction may—I stress may—curb the excesses of most of the troublemakers. If they still do not want to know after their second chance to live like other people, neither do I. I would have no qualms in declaring such people intentionally homeless and sending them on their way. If that happened a couple of times in Nottingham it would be a salutary lesson. It might not cure all the anti-social families, but it sure might cure a few.

Mr. Allen McKay: The problem of homeless families has been with us for many years and during that time it has grown because so many associated problems have had to be dealt with.
The dilemma facing local authorities—the problem mainly affects such authorities—is, what do they do if they turn families out? An authority may be faced with a nuisance family that has three, four or five children. If the local authority turns that family out, it must decide what will happen to the children. Here, finance comes into the matter again, because the local authority may decide that it is cheaper to deal with the problem by moving the family into another area rather than take the children into care. Taking children into care creates another problem, because the children may be well cared for and well loved. One problem will be dealt with, therefore, but another will be created.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said that Nottingham should move these people on; if it does, they will turn up somewhere else. They cannot continue to be vagrants. We must decide where they should move to. If they move to another city or town, they will have to be dealt with as homeless families, and local authorities will be obliged to rehouse them.
Families who are removed from their accommodation and rehoused are usually resettled in less desirable localities. If all such people are moved into such localities, the problem is moved into one large area that tends to spread outwards. The problem is not easy to deal with.
We have caused a lot of this problem by building tower blocks and low-rise accommodation. My local authority faces the same problems as those that the hon. Gentleman described. Hi-fi sets pound out high decibel noise that penetrates to two or three adjacent houses. I discovered in one of the estates in my constituency that the local authority has not spent enough on sound-proofing. We also made the mistake of thinking that old and young people can live together.
Not because it wanted to but because the Government instructed it to increase the density of accommodation, the council built—it had never done this before—terrace-type houses. Until that point, the council had built only

semi-detached houses. We needed old people's accommodation, and built it as four-bedroomed maisonettes. That just did not work. Old people do not want to be bothered with children, and younger people create a disturbance with their hi-fi sets. So people complained to me at my surgeries, and to the local authority. But noise is not enough reason to turn a family out; the problem needs careful handling.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving my local authority a good deal of money with which to deal with the problem in another way—making terrace-type housing into semi-detached houses and maisonettes into threebedroomed houses by taking the roofs away. In partnership with the local authority, we are creating a more environmentally desirable area, thereby dealing with the problem in another way. It works. There will still be the occasional problem family, but there will be fewer problems.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South described what he called "a succession" of boy friends. That is one of the easiest problems to deal with—provided, as the hon. Gentleman said, the local authority has the will. In the case of single persons, notice to quit is given to the person to whom the home belongs, who must get rid of the problem himself. By and large, notice to quit to the tenant does have the desired effect.
The hon. Gentleman is surprised. My authority has dealt with the problem by creating estate housing agents, who are continually in the area, know the area, know the tenants, know the problems, and after a short period know how to deal with them. So notice to quit and persistent visiting deal with the problem.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does the hon. Gentleman in his city have the problem that he referred to of the single tenant? The rent is paid—either directly or indirectly, but it is paid—and that single person hands the key to all sorts of different people, is often away for weeks or months on end, and there is no mechanism giving the local authority the power to remove the secure tenancy from that person because the rent is being paid, which means that house or flat is being used for all sorts of purposes and it is a nightmare to try to unscramble it. Does he not have that problem?

Mr. McKay: In fact, although the rent is being paid, the property is not being looked after, and it is part of the tenancy agreement that the property be available for inspection at all times and be looked after. Therefore, if the tenancy agreement is broken, notice to quit is given. So there are ways and means available within tenancy agreements. All our tenants have tenancy agreements as a matter of fact and of right at the beginning of their tenancy, not only giving them their rights, but explaining the rights of the local authority and its intention to carry them out.
I am not saying that it is an easy problem, which can be dealt with by simply turning people out. Some problems can be dealt with that way, but not all. The idea is to find out the cause of the problem. As I said, most of the time it is the environment in which people live, and we can deal with that problem. Also, in large areas there is a great deal of unemployment, which in itself leads to bad neighbourliness. We can get rid of problems by looking at the way we design houses in the future.
We will still have problems, because, I am afraid, in this world there are problem families and there always will be; they will not just disappear. However, the problem is not dealt with by simply turning people out, turning families on to the street, because someone else has to pick up that problem at a later date or in another area. People do not just disappear. We can deal with the problems of single people where there is a severe problem through social services, but we cannot deal with the family problem by turning the family out.
We have found, by a combination of good housing management, good estate management and the involvement of both police and social services, that we can deal with many of the problems and only be left with the minority, but it is the minority that will cause the trouble. I confess that we have some problems we do not know how to deal with. It is certainly not by turning people out. There must be a way of dealing with the problem, and it is a case of finding out how and when to do it effectively.

Mr. Ian McCartney: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House.

Mr. McCartney: As somebody very much interested in housing matters, I welcome the opportunity given by the hon. Member for debating this issue. Irrespective of party political background, if one has been involved in local community politics either as a councillor or as someone involved professionally, there is no local authority in Britain, whether Conservative, Labour or the alliance has overall control, that does not have either a minority problem or a serious problem in relation to anti-social behaviour by groups of tenants.
There is no single easy answer to those problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said, those of us who are aware of the problems know that a variety of steps must be taken about complaints to lead to an understanding of how best to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred to complaints at his surgeries. The problems that I have to deal with at my advice centres fall into two main categories. I receive complaints about repairs—either about their adequacy or about the time taken to effect them—and about disputes between neighbours. Sometimes those disputes are resolved amicably between the two parties after two or three days without speaking. However, sometimes the problems are intractable, like those referred to by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
There are several different types of problem. For example, there are problems with noise. As a result of structural defects in houses constructed in the 1950s and 1960s and an elderly population mingling with younger people, with their different social values, there are severe problems with noise in some buildings. Problems are also caused by drunkenness and drugs. Those problems are growing in certain inner cities and on some estates. They are not a major problem in my area, thank God, but where they do exist they cause severe problems for tenants who must cope with living next to people with alcohol and drug-related problems.
Crime also causes social stress in some communities. Tragically, neighbours often steal from neighbours. I have heard of several cases over the years, in my capacity as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, of neighbours returning home to find their house ransacked by a neighbour living immediately beside them, above them or below them. That can cause serious problems on estates in terms of attitudes towards certain tenants.
Unfortunately, in some areas, racial and sexual violence or harassment is increasing. There is also the age-old problem with dogs, which has been exacerbated by a failure to tackle problems of lawlessness and criminal activity. Despite the fact that all local authorities have strict rules about keeping pets and animals in certain types of housing, some authorities are driven in practical circumstances to allow single people and elderly people living alone to maintain an animal in the property. Often there are problems with those people failing to maintain the animals and problems have arisen with dogs roaming in packs in Nottingham and in parts of my constituency. Those animals cause serious health and environmental problems on estates.
Estates also suffer from design and structural problems, many of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. We must tackle the problems associated with poor environment which breed anti-social behaviour, a lack of community spirit and an inability for neighbours to communicate. In many of the flats and maisonettes in my constituency, neighbours sometimes do not know who is living next door. They do not know when neighbours move out or if there is an illness next door. The old family and community traditions are lost in the system-built housing errected in the 1960s. That causes disenchantment in the community and leads to many anti-social problems in the community among a minority of tenants.
There is a growing problem of mental illness and mental stress in the community. That is not simply caused by the failure of the programme to introduce people with mental problems, quite rightly, back into the community. Living in a modern society in a socially deprived area with few resources has a great effect on mental stress. In those circumstances, tenants are aggravated by people who, because of mental illness cannot ameliorate their personal habits and behaviour towards their neighbours.
A myriad of difficulties face local authority housing departments. The sample solution of throwing tenants onto the streets by taking action over the tenancy through the courts only raises the problem of where they go after that and who takes responsibility for them.
Most local authorities, and particularly my own, adopt a broader attitude. They try to maintain security for the majority of their tenants, taking action to ensure that their lives are not disrupted and totally destroyed. At the same time, they grapple with many of the problems that are at the seat of anti-social behaviour.
Local authorities are prepared to take action—rightly so—against disruptive tenants. I am dealing now with cases in which, in my view, the local authority should withdraw the tenancies of the individuals concerned, because they have not kept their promises either to that authority or to other tenants. In that minority of cases, court action should be taken—and as a Member of Parliament representing the interests of my constituents, I am prepared to say so.
In other cases, such action is not the way of resolving many of the problems that my hon. Friends have described. Since the Minister's appointment to the Department of the Environment, he and I have been involved in overseeing a number of schemes that my local authority introduced for coping with anti-social behaviour. They involve upgrading the community and the social environment with the creation of a sense of community spirit.
They also involve tenants in challenging anti-social behaviour. By that, I do not mean freelance vigilante groups touring the estates and knocking people over the head, but the involvement of tenants' associations and the local authority in reviewing the management of the estate, changes in investment policy to bring about an improved environment, and the authority's day-to-day role in overcoming anti-social behaviour.
My local authority has taken a number of important steps—with national Government assistance in others. It has introduced to three major estates door security systems, whose introduction has, almost overnight, substantially cut both criminal activity and anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the flats and maisonettes concerned.
On one particular estate, door security systems have in the past 12 months reduced the number of burglaries to almost nothing. Tenants are also given much greater choice as to whether they wish to remain on an estate or move elsewhere. Warden control systems provide for the elderly to be visited daily by the estate's management, who can deal with specific instances of anti-social behaviour by others.
Other management changes involve the tenants in estate policies concerning anti-social behaviour by the minority. Tenants are asked for their views on council policy in regard to moving problem families on to estates in large or small clusters. I am pleased to report that, because of the positive attitudes being adopted by tenants, the nature of some estates is rapidly changing.
Such measures cannot banish anti-social behaviour altogether, because no complete solution exists, but positive action and local authority and tenant involvement can create the climate in which changes can happen over a period. When tenants see those changes occurring, their attitude changes dramatically, and they become further involved in the development of policies affecting them.
Refurbishment of estates is essential to challenging tenants' attitudes to their environment. There is nothing worse than trying to involve tenants in such improvements when no capital has been invested in the estate and when crime is high, lighting is poor, footpaths between houses are not adequate and there are no facilities for shopping or for tenants—particularly the elderly—to meet, and when local authority services are sited miles from the seat of the problems.
Here again, our local authority has made dramatic changes in its management of difficult estates. Neighbourhood service offices have been set up on the estates, and new types of tenure have been introduced involving housing associations and the private sector in their redevelopment. All tenants have been given the opportunity to become involved in changing their

environment, and to respond positively to their own attitudes and to those of the minority who are still not prepared to co-operate in the community.
Much can be done. None the less, I still feel frustrated, in sympathy with the tenants who bring me their problems. They may have to live 24 hours a day with another tenant who is consistently drunk, violent and verbally abusive, and they may feel that nothing can be done. When a local authority has taken all possible steps to help such a person—involving, if necessary, other agencies such as the social services department and the health authority—and the offending tenant continues to make someone's life a misery, the landlord should be responsible for representing his interests.
There can be no ifs or buts. None of us who represent people in such circumstances can do other than ask ourselves, "What would I do?", and the answer must be: "Protect the individual from unprovoked attacks"—whether they are physical or verbal, or indeed take the form of another kind of harassment.
There is no risk that Opposition Members will sit on the sidelines and hope that no action is taken. We are all involved in local authority housing; we understand the problems and are looking for positive responses. A sometimes complex array of policies may be necessary, and those policies must be co-ordinated. In the case of mental illness, for example, much more co-operation is needed between health authorities, social services and housing departments. We cannot simply turn people on to the streets and hope that that will resolve the problem, for anti-social behaviour takes place in the street as well as in the home. Housing departments sometimes end up with the problems that other departments, including Government Departments, fail to tackle early. Health and social problems, for instance, usually manifest themselves there in the end.
Another problem is racial and sexual harassment. Numerous amendments to the Housing Bill were tabled by Opposition Members to strengthen the legislation relating to the private sector, but they were all rebuffed by the Minister of the time—who, as was said earlier, was eventually sacked. At that stage we argued strongly that the rights of private-sector tenants should be protected as much as those of public-sector tenants, and that it should not be left to them to understand whether they could go to the county court to complain of harassment.
We were disappointed that the Department of the Environment did not accept our amendments to strengthen the rights of tenants in the private sector who, unfortunately, suffer similar physical and verbal violence as those in the public sector.
Opposition Members are unanimous about what should be done to solve the problem. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and outline schemes being carried out by his Department and other local initiatives to deal with a complicated and difficult problem which cannot be resolved by simplistic solutions.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) deserves congratulations on winning an early place in the ballot to introduce a debate of his choice. He selected the subject of anti-social tenants, and we wondered what matters he would raise. He rightly referred to the way of life on estates


and the anti-social behaviour of certain council tenants. But anti-social behaviour is not confined to council tenants. Certain tenants in private dwellings and housing association property have anti-social habits and create problems, so the subject creates wider concern.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South expressed the concerns of his constituents and gave examples which applied to Nottingham. I am sure that that anti-social behaviour occurs wherever young people are offered tenancies in high-rise blocks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to noise and rubbish, which I consider the main problems of anti-social behaviour on council estates and on private estates where people have purchased their homes. Car parking and traffic can be another anti-social problem. However, without a doubt tower blocks create anti-social problems themselves. That should be drawn to the attention of the Minister and his colleague, the Minister responsible for planning, as some anti-social planning is taking place. The way that some areas are being developed creates problems. The planning of tower blocks should have been more in keeping with social behaviour and planners are responsible for some of the problems that we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It has been suggested that simplistic solutions will not solve the real problem, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be guilty of falling into that trap. It is much too simplistic to dismiss tower blocks as anti-social in themselves. I referred specifically to five tower blocks in my constituency. If the flats had security and video control they would be superb. They are beautiful flats and 98 per cent. of the people living in them love them and do not want to move. We are discussing the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of people who ruin it for everyone else. Let us be quite clear that tower blocks are not the specific source of anti-social behaviour. They are not. That problem is harder to deal with, but many people like living in those flats. We should not forget that.

Mr. O'Brien: I will not deny what the hon. Gentleman has said about people being satisfied with living in tower blocks. If they had the choice, in many instances they would prefer a house with a garden and no neighbours living above or below them. My experience of people who live in flats is that they would prefer to be housed in semi-detached houses or accommodation where they would have more freedom and a better outlook and environment. I accept that some people will warm to a flat when they have lived there for a while. I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Gentleman referred to dogs, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Only today I received a letter from a constituent who is petitioning about a neighbour who keeps dogs. However, the complaint is not about a tenant but about someone who owns a house. The people are petitioning because that person has created anti-social conditions.
The problem raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is broad. I cannot comment on the points he made about what is happening in Nottingham, but I can talk about the general position. It is not just tenants of council houses or of other types of rented accommodation but even owner-occupiers who cause anti-social problems. In many instances the reason for the trouble is the way in which planners have developed the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Pcnistone (Mr. McKay) talked about homelessness and how it led to problem families. Obviously, children a re a concern. My hon. Friend also referred to the lack of sound-proofing, with noise being one of the main sources of anti-social behaviour. In the main, sound-proofing is left to local authorities but they do not always have the resources to provide it.
Some landlords are responsible for anti-social behaviour because of the poor living conditions and the bad environment that they provide. One of the worst landlords in our area in the past was the National Coal Board. Because of poor maintenance, its houses became semi-slums or even slums in some cases. The only people who were attracted to those areas were people who were less desirable as tenants in the more acceptable housing estates.
Clearly, there arc problems that can be laid at the door of landlords. Even the people who bought estates from British Coal are not doing anything to improve the environment there. Tenants are not the only people who are guilty of anti-social behaviour; landlords, including some local authorities also bear some responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to the need to refurbish estates and to the fact that there should be provision for estate management. In my opinion, some of the problems in Nottingham that we have heard about come down to the lack of proper estate management. Local authorities should have sufficient trained officers to manage estates and to ensure that the tenants who create problems are identified.
I agree with those hon. Members who have said that there is no excuse for people who deliberately create problems for their neighbours. That kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated in any way. But such people should be given an opportunity to accept reality and become good tenants. However, that requires properly trained housing managers.
In this regard, I refer to the private sector and to housing associations, as well as to the public sector. As I said earlier, there are problems in private housing estates. These can be tackled only through pollution legislation; action is a matter for the local authority arid the environmental health departments.
Because of bad landlords and bad living conditions, some tenants, including caravan dwellers, are caught in a trap. Caravan dwellers can be anti-social neighbours. This is another matter that is causing great concern. The Government have not tackled the problem, but have left it to the local authorities, and there is some argument as to whether the county council or the district council is responsible for taking action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone referred to the question of homelessness. I am sure that other hon. Members, like me, know of people who, because of the high mortgage rates, are finding it difficult to make their repayments and are having their homes repossessed. That adds to the problem of homelessness, and the splitting up of families creates other social problems.
There should be a better means—through housing managers—of advising people what to do in circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. If the necessary resources were available, counselling on the question of bad neighbours


could be introduced. I consider that the community watch schemes have helped to stimulate good neighbourly behaviour. In many instances such schemes have brought neighbours together socially and thus created a better environment in the community. Although, I do not know whether that could happen in high-rise blocks because the need for community watch schemes is not the same in such areas as on housing estates, such facilities could be considered if we are looking for ways to try to resolve the problems caused by anti-social tenants.
This subject could develop into a lengthy debate. Education could be a means of trying to prevent anti-social behaviour in tenants, owner-occupiers or caravan dwellers. Although we give serious thought to all these issues, there is no easy way out of the problem. It involves many of the departments of local authorities, such as environmental health, housing and planning. Social housing is a further relevant issue that the Minister and I have addressed on more than one occasion. I repeat that there is no easy way out of this problem.
I advise the hon. Member for Nottingham, South that we are concerned about the anti-social behaviour of some people on estates and that we would support any scheme that tried to resolve the problem. We will not be party to supporting people who make life intolerable for those around them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): We have had a useful, constructive and interesting debate. Although I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken, I am sure that Opposition Members would wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on instigating it. Although I shall address several of the points raised by the hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I hope that they will forgive me if I initially address my remarks specifically to the problems addressed in my hon. Friend's opening speech.
I take this opportunity of welcoming the fact that, while my hon. Friend addressed the House, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was sitting beside me on the Government Front Bench. That is significant because, although, as the hon. Member for Normanton said, there needs to be close liaison between local government departments, I readily acknowledge that there also needs to be close liaison between Government Departments, not least between my own, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, and not least on this issue.
Before I forget, I repeat the offer that I have made in the past to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South: it might be useful if we had a meeting between Ministers in the Department of the Environment and those in the Home Office to address the problem that he has brought to the notice of the House this evening.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has become something of an expert in this subject over the years and that he has had close touch with the housing authorities in Nottingham. I am grateful

to him and other hon. Members for focusing attention on a problem which, in the past, seems to have been intractable, although with a bit of co-operation we could make much progress.
As my speech unfolds, I shall try to develop a number of the themes initiated by the hon. Member for Makerfield. However, initially I must stress the harm that was done in the 1960s and 1970s by the utopian designers who put up housing that we now know to be the most vulnerable in terms of anti-social behaviour. It was fashionable at the time, but the gospel truth is that all the major political parties were to blame. Whoever held central power is irrelevant, because at that time local authorities were controlled by Conservatives, Socialists and, for all I know, Liberals, and we were all guilty.
Open-plan estates, with their lack of enclosed private areas, pointless open spaces and criss-cross footpaths, were bad enough, but tower blocks were the worst culprits, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said. Features such as easy access, anonymity, lack of supervision, uncared-for public spaces and many others have been catalogued. All those problems can be ameliorated and often cured if tenants, management and designers work together.
Nottingham's blocks went up—at the same time as everyone else's—to accommodate people from its massive clearance programmes. Most cities did the same. Some of the worst complexes, such as Balloon Woods, Basford and Hyson Green flats, have come down again, and I believe that Denman and Connaught gardens are to follow. No one could complain at the disappearance of such monstrosities. Many other blocks in Nottingham have the potential to provide good housing in a civilised environment, and I am glad to say that many are well on the way to doing so.
I was much impressed by my visit to the Victoria centre complex at Nottingham. Some 450 flats built over the shopping centre had become difficult to let because criminal elements could gain access to the residential floors by a dozen unguarded routes. Robberies were mounting, and violent crimes had been reported. My Department's Estate Action scheme enabled a system to be installed whereby access is only by the personal card of residents or reference to a central control point. Video surveillance covers not only entrance ways but lifts. In addition, each flat has its own link to the control. The system has been installed only for a year, but already I understand that residents' morale has been transformed. I saw a number of examples of that while I was there and met a number of tenants.
There are less elaborate systems in 10 other blocks, several of which are aided by estate action, and three more are soon to be included in the programme. Not all the systems have proved successful. A door entry system controlled by tenants and supervised by a concierge seems to work well enough in a single block, of which Southchurch court, Clifton, is a good example. Video surveillance of unmanned blocks is not satisfactory, however, and where such systems have been installed, the city must think again. I am arranging for a discussion between my Department's Estate Action team and the city council to consider what is to be done with the unsatisfactory systems and how to proceed in the blocks that have not yet been dealt with.
It is for the city council, however, to decide the priority that is to be given to this work. Nottingham has one of the


biggest housing investment programmes for its size in the country. With rather wiser stewardship of its resources, it could soon find the funds to put in whatever systems are most suitable. The council has once again started building houses to rent, instead of part-funding housing associations, which can obtain some of the cost from the private sector. It prefers three rented houses of which it can claim to be the landlord to four in the hands of another responsible body. Again, the council has abandoned the highly popular "Mini Mod" approach of its Conservative predecessor for a much more expensive council house refurbishment programme.
My Department stands ready to help Nottingham through Estate Action and through the housing investment programme system to meet the most pressing needs it faces. However, we need to be convinced that the council is doing all it can to help itself—minimising public sector costs, bringing in private funding wherever possible and choosing its priorities wisely.
It is not only capital investment that matters. In some cases, sensible allocation policies can make a big difference. The Woodthorpe-Winchester blocks at Nottingham, for instance, are being turned over gradually to elderly people. Another approach is to try to provide places where those who enjoy making a noise late at night can do so without upsetting anyone. Here is an obvious opportunity for the public and private sectors to put their heads together and come up with positive proposals.
The report undertaken for my Department by the university of Glasgow on the nature and effectiveness of housing management concludes that decentralised housing management is generally more effective than centralised. Nottingham has made moves towards fully delegated local management, but much still remains to be done. Regular contact between residents and a local office will only build up if that office is involved with all aspects of housing and has power to take effective action. Here again, the Estate Action group will shortly be discussing with the council what can be done to strengthen on-the-spot management so that that in turn gives tenants the confidence to organise and act in their own best interests. That point was drawn out well by the hon. Member for Normanton. Close contact is particularly important in a transitional situation like that at Connaught gardens, where flats are being emptied in phases. Morale drops, vandalism goes unchecked and tenants feel abandoned unless they have close contact with effective management in such situations.
The hon. Member for Makerfield is well versed in Estate Action schemes, priority estate projects and the use of the community programmes. He was kind enough to invite me to his constituency not long ago, where I saw a first-class example of Estate Action working and involving the local community. He made the point well in his speech tonight. I go one further: it should be an extension of the priority estates project that we should try to develop what we in the Department of the Environment call estate management. We have about eight schemes running in England under which we are encouraging local authorities to pass down some of their responsibilities from the town hall to give some power to the tenants who are operating in the estates.
I visited Burnley recently and was impressed by what I saw. Tenants there had had a recent election and they had elected their own group of people which was rather similar to a tenants committee, but had the responsibility of appointing the local government officer who would

operate from the local estate office, which would not be in the town hall, but on the estate. That point was made well by the hon. Member for Makerfield. I should like to see the example to which I have referred replicated throughout the country. The more responsibility and training in controlling costs, in accounts and in how to balance the budget of the housing revenue account that is given to such people, the more they can be helped. As the hon. Member for Normanton said, if they have such a presence, they may be in a much stronger position to deal with the problem of anti-social tenants.
We have the technology and we know a great deal more about the management problems than we did before. The recent report by Professor Maclennan has helped us in that regard. In a secure environment, with supportive management, the tenants will find it worthwhile to play their part. Associations can he formed and those ready to protest about anti-social behaviour, for example, will be supported. At this stage, the law can play a part.
To try to bring the House up to date with what is permissible, I shall quickly catalogue what is allowable. One regular problem which can be a bone of contention with anti-social tenants who have no regard for their neighbours is excessive and persistent noise. The specific statutory remedies here are that, under section 58 of The Control of Pollution Act 1974, once a local authority is satisfied that a noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur, it may serve on the person responsible a notice, which is enforceable in the magistrates court, requiring the abatement of the noise or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence.
Under section 59 of the control of Pollution Act, it is also open to an individual who is bothered by noise affecting his home to complain direct to the magistrates court, which has powers to make and enforce an order with similar effect to that of a local authority notice once it is satisfied that noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to recur.
There is a further legislative weapon. The Housing Act 1980 gave council tenants security of tenure so that a council cannot move a secure tenant without a court order for possession. The Act prescribed 13 grounds—there are now 16—on which a council can seek possession from a secure tenant. One of those grounds—now ground 2 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985—is that the conduct of a tenant or anyone living with him annoys or is a nuisance to neighbours. A court will grant the order for possession if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so; it does not have to be satisfied—as it does with some other grounds—that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the dispossessed tenant. This ground has been successfully used, and I understand that several local authorities. of all political persuasions, are considering using it to combat tenants' anti-social behaviour towards their neighbours. Anti-social behaviour, of course, goes much wider than noise.
In addition, anti-social behaviour can be a breach of the tenancy agreement, and a local authority may then have grounds for possession under ground 1 of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985—"breach of obligation of the tenancy".
I might add that, when nuisance or annoyance is in issue, evidence of some kind is required, and some authorities, I am told, find it difficult to persuade tenants to attend court to give evidence. I understand that. However, the county court rules expressly give a court discretion to admit hearsay statements in evidence


if it thinks it just to do so
and I understand that some authorities have been able to recover possession using ground 2 on the basis of evidence given by their council officers.
The power to change someone's behaviour by persuasion or punitive measures will vary, I accept, from person to person but some things may be more open to change. We can act to improve the environment and the appearance of council estates. We can devolve the management of estates down to estate level, with estate management offices, and that will certainly help. We can install security measures and reduce opportunities for crime through the relatively new estate action programme. We can encourage efficient housing management, better responsiveness to tenants' wishes and a greater involvement on the part of tenants. All such measures have their part to play in reducing the problems to which hon. Members have referred.

Mr. Allen McKay: I was interested to hear the Minister refer to his contact with the Home Office. The community constable at home in Barnsley shares the semi-detached house that we use to house estate management. It is proving a very effective system to have them together in one unit. Will the Minister talk to his Home Office colleagues about the need to increase the number of community constables on the beat to make the system more efficient?

Mr. Trippier: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Let me tell him the most impressive thing that I saw in Burnley. I opened an estates management office formed by tenants who had previously been members of a tenants' association. The local constable had an office in the same building. I entirely accept that he was not manning the office all the time—neither the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone nor I would want him to do so because that would prevent him from being out on the beat and aware of what was going on—but the community spirit to which the hon. Member for Normanton referred was very much in evidence. That was in stark contrast to what I have seen on some of the difficult estates in other parts of the country.
I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. With the development of Estate Action, the priority estates programme and estate management, we must involve the local constabulary wherever possible. Security plays a significant part in getting it right. We should not be so arrogant as to assume that we know all the answers—far from it.

Mr. McCartney: An extension of that point could also be the involvement of the probation service. We in Wigan, along with the Home Office, are already well on the road to a study of the effectiveness of the probation service being involved in estate management projects. We hope that, by the end of next year, a report will come forward. Despite the lack of resources that we all complain about, there has been a positive reaction from the authority, the tenants' association and the probation service.

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, too. All such organisations have their part to play in reducing the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South referred. My Department is playing an active part in the allocation of resources and guidance.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trippier: I shall give way for the last time. I am desperately trying to reply to the debate.

Mr. O'Brien: I am interested in what the Minister is saying. He is making the case for placing authority for housing at the local level. In view of the changes in housing legislation, is the Minister saying that the same principle will apply to private and municipal housing estates?

Mr. Trippier: I can hardly see how it can. If one were to suggest that people on a private housing estate should band together other than through neighbourhood watch, which I support, there would be deep resentment among those who think that they are better able to manage their own affairs. When they have come across difficulties with anti-social behaviour, whether it be burglary or other degrees of crime, and they have opted for a neighbourhood watch scheme, which I agree would probably help the community spirit, that is all well and good. They can volunteer to do that.
We are talking about trying to get housing management in local authorities and in housing associations down to the local level, where it can be of greatest possible benefit. If we do the things that I have suggested and some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, we will get a much better community spirit. We will certainly get more effective housing management.
As I said, this has been an interesting and constructive debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for raising this important subject. I hope that the record of the debate will be widely read.

Orders of the Day — Tropical Rain Forests

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Quite simply, I am more concerned, more alarmed and more frightened by my visit in the last few days of February 1989 to Altamira and the Xingu river rain forest than by any other issue or event in my public life and 27 years' membership of the House of Commons.
Allow me a word to my constituents. We live between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which is the same latitude as the north coast of Labrador. If the destruction in eastern Amazonia proceeds at the exponential pace of felling, clearing and burning of the 1987 and 1988 seasons, we in Linlithgow, along with about 250 million other northern Europeans—not to mention the little matter of the eastern seaboard of the United States—could have the climate of northern Labrador. There really could be flip in world weather patterns.
I know that neither the Foreign Office Ministers nor the Minister for Overseas Development, who are well-informed and deeply concerned about this matter, dismiss me as alarmist. But should anyone suggest that on this matter I am simply a politician in search of a headline, I am entitled to point out that for 22 years now successive editors of the New Scientist have seen fit to give me a weekly column in their informed and responsible journal. They would not have tolerated me had I not been extremely careful with fact.
At Altamira I had two long sessions with the Brazilian-German chemist from Rio Grande del Sul, Jose Lutzenberger. In simplistic terms the argument is that for tens of thousands, probably millions of years, winds from the east have brought the Atlantic rains to north-eastern Brazil, to the province of Para and the Amazon delta. On account of the vast rain forest eco-system, there were massive low cloud formations. Some 75 per cent. of the rains falling to ground and the forest is returned to the atmosphere through the due processes of evapotranspovation. Some 25 per cent. of the Atlantic rains would flow to the ocean through the Amazon and its tributaries, incidentally carrying one fifth of the world's fresh water flow. The Amazon carries a greater volume of water than the Mississippi, the Zambesi, the Congo, the Orinoco, the Nile, the Ob, the Lena and the St. Lawrence combined.
However, suppose that the rain forest of eastern Amazonia is decimated. What is likely to occur? Will there be the same cloud formations that we have taken for granted? Well, not on the experience of sub-Saharan Africa, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whom I thank for being on the Front-Bench, knows so well. Nor will there be in the light of the recent history of north-eastern Brazil—dry hot air rises; clouds do not form; blue skies: classic desertification.
In Brazil I was told that there was evidence that to an alarming extent thermal currents were being generated upwards where rain forest had been devastated, preventing incoming moist air masses. In truncated form, I am saying that the cutting down of eastern Amazonia and the Para rain forest will create a blocking system—a sort of fire-break situation in terms of rain, where the rains do not get through to central Amazonia. That spells planetary trouble.
If the "hop-scotch" effect—it would be presumptuous of me to give a lesson in climatological physics—of

moisture going up down, up down, up down, up down, up down as it crosses the central and western Amazon is broken, if the chain is severed in eastern Amazonia, a number of consequences surely follow.
First, the dry season may be longer, which will give more opportunity for more logging and felling, clearing and burning. The savannah will be extended.
Secondly, there will be more and larger forest tires. At a conservative estimate in 1987–88 an area the size of France was destroyed by fire. Satellite NASA information indicates that it is worse. Ministers should ask NASA for a copy of its data.
Thirdly, I was told in Altamira by Jorge Terena, an English-speaking Amerindian, that, if the central Amazon forest was denied rains for three or four weeks in the rainy season, the entire forest eco-system could die. Does anyone know what percentage of forest can be destroyed without the entire forest eco-system ceasing to be viable? It is a fragile house of cards. My distinct impression was that with thousands of years of accumulated experience, the Xingu Indians knew more about the rain forest than anyone else.
I have a specific request of Ministers. I thought it proper to offer the Minister a full copy of my notes before making this speech. Will Ministers ask a most distinguished botanist, the new director of Kew gardens, Dr. Ghillean Prance—whom on purpose I have not yet contacted—to the Foreign Office and ask him for his considered professional opinion'? Will they then make that opinion available in the Library of the House? Before being deputy director of the New York botanical garden, Dr. Prance worked in Manaos and has great experience. I do not know what Dr. Prance will say, but hon. Members have the right to know. I ask, too, that the embassy in Brasilia contact Dr. Lutzenberger for a detailed report.
In an excellent and formidable "Panorama" programme, it was asserted that if last year's burning season was repeated, the rain forest would be gone in 20 years. It talked of the loss of an acre a second and claimed that 700 acres a day were lost to freelance gangs producing charcoal. On Channel 4 the dire warnings of the brilliantly powerful "Fragile Earth" series have begun to alert the British electorate. Friends of the Earth has done a magnificent job in alerting us all to the issues.
Let us be clear about those issues—we are confronted with the prospect, here and now, of an irreversible and terribly final biological and botanical holocaust. Gone for ever will be the jaguars and black panthers, most of the parrot family and a host of other animals, birds and insects.
Botanically, I am told that 1 per cent. of Amazon plants have been examined for their medicinal qualities. Labelled jungle medicine, there is an enormous potential for low-level technology in medicine. Elaine Elisabetsky, for example, told me something of her work in Belem on plants to cure epilepsy, specifically on cissus cisyoides vifaceo.
Other unexamined or not fully examined possibilities include veronica types to cure anaemia, avocado leaf to cure inflammation, erva cadreira for insomnia, cinnamon for blood diseases and nausea, mamora for bowel complaints, piao blanco for intestinal trouble, orija for kidney problems, capira santo for pain and diarrhoea, amor cresido for colics, guarana for heart problems. Sucuba has anti-carcinogenic qualities, andiroba could


help to cure coughs, murure could help muscular pain and rheumatism, alecrin help with puberty problems and pin-piri could help with contraceptive problems.
A species of alexa tree at the western end of Maraca—I commend successive Governments for the help that has been given in Maraca—discovered by Gwilym Lewis contains the plant alkaloid castanospermine, which is also found in Madagascar. Tests at St. Mary's hospital—I do not want to raise hopes—may provide treatment for some forms of AIDS.
It is not only the plant and animal kingdom that could be devastated, but human kind. I ask the Foreign Office to get the Meteorological Office and all the expert advice available to the Government to scrutinise the work of Professor Salati Piracicaba of the university of Brazil and indeed the work of that pioneer of climatological studies, James Lovelock of Cornwall.
The argument is that if the rain forest were to vanish the moist air currents that pound against the Andes would no longer do so. If they cease to do that the high air currents, which in loose terms rebound off the Andes, would simply not be formed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: I note that the Minister is nodding and I believe that he is aware of the argument.
It is those air currents, warm and humid, which return across the South American continent, parallel the Gulf stream and then split to cover the eastern seaboard of the United States and to cover northern Europe.
Our excellent physicist ambassador in Brasilia, Michael Newington, gently said to me, "Tam, you can't prove all this!" Certainly I cannot. But the trouble is that I am not convinced that anyone else can prove it wrong. All I can reflect is that I was lectured to by O. R. Frisch and Paul Dirac, that Harold Wilson made me work to Pat Blackett for two years and I worked on public issues with Neville Mott. I would never ask Ministers to undertake expensive research in physics if it was ill-considered or frivolous. The stakes are stupendous—little less than a neo-ice age for industrial Europe. That is an issue about which humankind, as Michael Stewart used to say, cannot afford to be wrong. Being wrong could lead to catastrophe.
The last ice age came incredibly quickly—that is proven geologically—and we are talking about actual time, not geological time. The mammoth is not a tundra-eating animal. Vegetation was found in the stomachs of mammoths. If the ice age had given them warning, would they not have fled south? How were those animals suddenly encapsulated in ice? May not that tell us something about the suddenness of climatological change?
It is one thing to state such a problem; it is another to suggest how to set about attempting to resolve it. It is enormously complex. However, there is hope. I say to my hon. Friends that, in my opinion, the Minister answering tonight and the Minister for Overseas Development are as concerned as any first-class Labour Minister would be in the circumstances.
Secondly, the briefing I had before going to Altamira, from Charles de Chassiron, head of the South America department of the Foreign Office, was exceedingly

well-informed and of the highest quality. I do not doubt that officials in the Foreign Office are fully seized of the gravity of the situation.
Thirdly, Britain has an outstanding embassy in Brasilia. I have long thought—and said publicly—that the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service do a first-class job abroad for Britain. I received much personal kindness, not least from Tim Ewing and his wife Claudine, with whom I stayed for three nights in Brasilia, and my objective observation was how deeply they cared about Brazil and understanding Brazilians.
Fourthly, as when I led the parliamentary delegation to Brazil in 1975, I thought that the senior officials and Ministers whom I met last week in Brasilia were very serious-minded and high-quality people. They were certainly charming.
There is only one thing that I think Ministers and officials may not have fully grasped—certainly I had not done so before setting foot in Altamira—and that is the sheer, gargantuan, awesome scale of the recent devastation up the Xingu river. Kilometre after kilometre we travelled to the site of the proposed dam, and on both sides of the track, as far as the eye could see, were the scorched, gaunt, Brazil nut trees, useless because their eco-system had been burned to make way for a few bone-protruding oxen, and swamps, useful only to mosquitoes. For not grasping this, British Ministers and officials can be forgiven, because I do not think that the delightful Professor David Vieria, professor of history at the university of Brasilia, and reporting to President Sarney on the Altamira gathering, had realised the scale of the devastation either.
I have lived with gold dredgers in the Ashanti forest in Ghana, and have been in Sarawak, and my friend, Simon Counsell, of Friends of the Earth, has considerable experience in South America, and we agreed that what we saw in Xingu was spectacularly the worst sight of its kind we had ever seen.
I hope that when Mr. Speaker goes on an official visit to Brazil this summer, which I greatly welcome, he will ask to see for himself some of the stricken areas. Mr. Speaker, who knows east Asia, will be heartbroken by the spectacle of jagged fire-blackened stumps and weak soils, cracked in the heat, or washed into the eroded gulleys by the tropical rains. Let us be clear that this is the debris of a battlefield. The appalling fact is that in every hectare of forest cleared by fire, hundreds of mammals and countless thousands of insects and soil invertebrates have been burned alive.
I do not want to quibble, but my original title for the debate was "International action to help Brazil conserve the Brazilian Amazonian rain forest". I say that not to complain about Mr. Speaker, who wanted—understandably—to include other hon. Members who had tabled similar subjects for debate, but to make the point that it is counter-productive to lecture the Brazilian Government. Anyhow, none of us is in a position to claim the moral high ground since, as I said in my opening statement at each meeting in Brasilia, I come from Scotland, where we have cut down most of the ancient Caledonian forest.
However, a number of suggestions emerged from these meetings. In the meeting I had along with Simon Counsel of Friends of the Earth with Fernando Cesar Mesquita, he suggested fire-fighting equipment and planes for combating forest fires. I was particularly glad and grateful that Philip Morrice, Minister Counsellor at the embassy, was able to come with us to the meeting, as he will surely make available to the Minister his interpretation of what was


said. I have given notice to the Minister of a number of constructive suggestions on which he may care to comment or reflect.
First, I ask Ministers to check the note which Philip Morrice made of the meeting in relation to the provision of fire-fighting equipment and planes. The current negotiations are going on with the Canadians, but it was thought that we might be able to help, as the RAF has aircraft interests in Brazil, and that we might be able to help with the telecommunications equipment and special boats Fernando Mesquita said that he needed.
I believe the west should offer to work with Mr. Mesquita, and refrain from making criticism such as that levelled at him at Altamira. He is a member of a Government with the urgent problem of teeming millions in the cities of Brazil, and comes from the poverty-stricken north-east of the country. A follow-up of the meeting should take place and Government Ministers should at least tell Parliament what practical help Mr. Mesquita has asked for from Britain. This may be expensive for the aid budget. but it is not as expensive as the consequences of climatalogical flip and northern Europe developing Labrador conditions.
My heart went out to Mr. Mesquita when he sighed and said gently to us that there were only five people in the state of Bahia working against deforestation by burning. What does one of the world's most vast states do when freebooters open air strips over which there is little practical control? This was one of the questions which ambassador Araujo Castro, head of the International Organisations Department at Itamaraty, put to me. The answer is that Britain should continue its embassy dialogue with ambassador Castro. Only the Government of Brazil can make decisions as to how the task of dealing with illegal air strips can he met.
Additional praise should be given to the Brazilian Government for their response to international concern. I note the establishment of "Our Nature" programme and urge the Government to support the programme, in particular restrictions on and control of forest exploitation and new conservation legislation. I believe that Colonel Alcantara of Punei and his colleagues are striving with sincerity and ability to exercise such control. I approve strongly of the attitude of Dr. John Hemming, secretary and director of the Royal Geographical Society. He said:
We saw the invitation to survey Maraca's flora and fauna as a chance to help save the rain forests. Brazilians are becoming weary of international protest about the destruction of the Amazon forest. We wanted to do something positive to reverse that catastrophic and usually futile devastation. Instead of adding to the outcry, we decided to learn more about the way the forest system functions so that it can be brought to life again after being felled and abandoned.
The problem of the Amazon forest is inextricably bound up with power supplies and dams, which in turn are bound up with the debt alleviation problem. The Government should talk to Kit McMahon, that exceedingly able Bank of England official, whom Harold Wilson sent me to see when I was on the Budget Committee of the European Parliament, and whom I met again in Brasilia when he was out there as chairman of the Midland bank. A policy statement should be made on the Government's attitude to "debt-for-nature" swaps. I have studied the speech made by President Sarney on 12 October 1988 about the launching of the Brazilian programme for the protection of the Amazonian

eco-system complex in which he seemed to pour cold water on debt for nature. Since then, President Sarney is reported as having discussed the issue with President Bush at Hirohito's funeral. I am entitled to ask what is the Government's latest thinking on debt for nature?
I have spoken to Kit McMahon and the Midland group risk manager, Edward Gager, and other Midland bank decision-makers such as Nicholas Reade, and I have no doubt that they are deeply concerned in their personal and public capacities about the rain forest. My impression is that the great banking institutions of Europe would like to offer constructive help to try to save Amazonia. Are the Government going to hold discussions with the clearing banks about Amazonia?
I take to heart the solemn warning that Sergio Amaral, a key Brazilian Treasury Minister, gave to me and Edward Gager over the ambassador's lunch table about what could happen in Brasil if a more enlightened attitude to debt was not displayed. Since Michael Aron, our extremely competent commercial counsellor participated in the discussions, Ministers will be able to corroborate what was said. I just observe that time may not be on the side of enlightened good sense.
There are also basic questions about the ethics of the debt. The representatives of the bishops, Father Cristobal Alvarez, a Jesuit priest, and Father George Doran representing the bishops, went through the annual figures of recent years. Certainly the problem took off under President Kubitschek. However, if there is blame, the United States and European banks must bear some of it in exacting so much interest. Are we sure that it is in the interests of human kind to continue to demand wood, and to demand soya to feed European cattle to put meat into intervention to pay a debt which could lead to a climatic flip?
We are all in a dangerous mess. Thirty five years ago I used to go three mornings a week at 9 am to listen to Dom David Knowles in a packed Mill lane lecture room and I heard all about St. Thomas Aquinas, usury and the just price. I do not doubt that with his intellectual qualifications and his Roman Catholic convictions the Minister for Overseas Development is even better informed about these matters.
An American business man friend of mine, John Bryan, who accompanied me to Altamira, tells me:
Brazil is selling natural resources below market value to finance the national debt. In addition, pressure to reduce prices on export products has forced the use of pesticides and chemicals barred in other developing nations to reduce costs. Therefore, the programme of debt reduction recently announced by President Bush should be supported by the British.
Are the British playing a part in the Bush programme and in particular are we discussing with the Americans the banning of certain chemicals such as mercury? I confess that that is easier said than done.
Should help be given foundation to foundation? Excellent work has been done by the Gaia Foundation under the directorship of Ed Posey. I wonder if that might not be one of the best ways to achieve small-scale, practical results. The House will be aware that I tabled a series of questions about the policy of the World bank and the instructions to its British director. I quote with approval the work of Survival International and a host of other


human rights and environmental organisations worldwide which have been appealing to the World bank and to the national Governments who fund it not to approve the loan.
Robin Hanbury-Tenison, the president of Survival International, said:
If the Bank approves this loan it will become an accomplice in the destruction of Amazon Indian tribes. Previous experience makes all too clear that the Brazilian Government lacks both the political will and the institutional capacity to respect the Indians' rights and protect them from the devastating consequences of such accelerated development.
I gained the impression from George Papadopoulos, the World bank's resident representative in Brasilia, that the bank did not have the resources to monitor the ecological effects of the power sector loan. I ask the Minister to check that with Minister Counsellor Philip Morrice, who attended the meeting, and to correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, what instructions will be given to the World Bank's British director to improve ecological monitoring?
On nuclear power, I part company with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and wth Friends of the Earth, on whose initiative I went to Altamira and for whose careful, responsible work I have the highest regard. For the purposes of the Register of Members' Interests, I ought to say that I paid my own fare to Altamira using bucket shop flights, and that I am not beholden to anybody.
My personal opinion is that it is unforgivable and embarassingly shameful that Westinghouse has palmed off on Brazil a nuclear power plant that does not work properly. We should all offer help in making sure that both Angra I and Siemens' Angra II and III work, sited as they are between Sao Paolo and Rio. We are on delicate ground, but it is indefensible that developed countries and high technology societies should have done such a thing. Our consul-general in Rio, Roger Hart, and his first-rate colleagues could be asked for advice. If the power stations are made to work properly, that would make a tremendous difference to the perceived need to build others and dams, and to flood Amazonia.
In Brasilia, we were welcomed by Edmundo Antonio Taveira of Electronorte. The World bank should tactfully ask Electronorte whether it is sure about the technical feasibility of its transmission proposals. Electronorte said vaguely that the Russians have succeeded in transmitting power over 2000 kms without unacceptable loss, but Altamira to Sao Paulo-Rio is a good deal further—and I am told that efficient transmissions under those circumstances is not within the present state of the art. Why create dams in the Amazon if there are to be Balbina-type disasters? The World bank should equally tactfully establish a conference of hydrologists so that Tucvrui will not be repeated.
Neither the Russians nor anyone in the West has come anywhere near implementing the transmission of power over 2000 kms without unacceptable loss. That calls into question the economic viability of any large-scale dam project in Amazonia. In friendship, the Brazilians should be asked whether they think that they know something about superconductivity that is not known to the British, Americans, Russians, Germans and French.
The expertise of British companies is sought in overcoming some of the hydrological problems arising out

of the Tucvrui and Balbina projects. Can that expertise be encouraged to prevent such disasters occurring in the first place? Can information be given, possibly by letter, about the work being done at Wallingford by the hydrological research station?
Can we help over biomass techniques? In Brazil, the secretary-general for technical co-operation at the Ministry of Energy indicated to Simon Counsell and myself that his Ministry was interested in using spoiled land for quick-growing eucalyptus trees for energy. I thought that he seemed anxious about the transmission problem but that he did not want to be disloyal to Electrobras and Electronorte.
What can be done about educational co-operation? I welcome ambassador Michael Newington's involvement in the creation of four scholarships for Brazilians at the university of Aberdeen, and perhaps the Minister can say when that development will be finalised. I welcome also the work of Mike Potter and his colleagues at the British Council in Rio. I hope that Philip Jenkins and his friends receive the support that they deserve for the Margaret Mee Foundation. As I told Margaret Mee's artist widower, Greville, her book on the flowers of the Amazon has been an enormous plus in alerting public opinion in Britain.
I was invited to the home of our defence attaché, Colonel Anthony Witheridge, and his wife Anne—who spoke fluent Portuguese—for a most interesting dinner with the Brazilian military. It is no use pretending that at first the Defence Minister, the formidable and powerful General Leonidas, was not annoyed with me—in fact, jolly angry—for participating in Altamira. Was I trying to tell him about the Amazon? For all his wrath, however, I took an instant liking to him. I remembered that, like the king of Spain, he had taken a major step to save democracy when the chips were down.
When Tancro Neves died prematurely, it was General Leonidas who told the army that Brazil was not going back to military rule. That was an act of courage and wisdom. In my view, the general is the only man who can do much about the burning this season. He is the only man who can control the gold searchers and who has the power to stop landless people and rich ranchers from ravaging the forest. I think that he should be seen as being at the highest level. I am not our Prime Minister's most uncritical admirer in many respects, but if General Leonidas comes to Europe the red carpet should be laid out for him in Downing street. He is the only guy who can do much in the short term, here and now; and it is the short term that matters.
I am glad that at least both Michael Newington and Philip Morrice heard at first hand the general's scorching views being aimed at me exactly a fortnight ago, and I hope that Ministers ask for their judgment on what Britain could usefully do for the Brazilian army to help it to protect the forest.
I was alarmed by some of the Americans at Altamira. Alexander King, from Tempe, Arizona, said:
In 10 years, life support systems will be destabilised".
Displaying a real knowledge of climatology, he went on to suggest that events in Amazonia, combined with the destruction of Mesquite forest in Colorado, were responsible for the hottest summer in Arizona for at least 150 years; for 85 per cent. of the giant Saguaro cactus dying; for the Arizona desert turning from a living to a dying desert; for unprecedented drought in the grain bowls of Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas; and for dust bowls in


Manitoba. Is any serious, sustained research being done, in conjunction with the Americans, on the validity or otherwise of such concerns about Amazon deforestation?
I recognise the participation of Her Majesty's Government in various international schemes, including the International Tropical Timber Organisation and the tropical forest action plan. Much of the extra burden of participation in those schemes has fallen on the Overseas Development Ministry. Has its strength of commitment and expertise been supported by additional funding and resources? Is our role as one of the developed world's leading consumers of timber really being reflected in our level of funding for special projects for forest conservation initiated by the ITTO?
The European Parliament has taken steps to act on the devastation of rain forests and the threat to tribal people in parts of the world other than Amazonia, most notably Malaysia. Are Her Majesty's Government supporting the implementation of the European Parliament's proposals through the Council of Ministers?
Finally, I want to say something personal and very heartfelt. Politicians can easily become emotional. After long experience I am a relatively unemotional man, but I was extremely emotional when I reflected on those conversations with Xingu tribespeople. They said, very simply, "We are of the earth; we are the best guardians of the forest." In a sense that is deeply true. It will not help them greatly for us to lecture the Brazilian Government too much, but I hope that we will pay attention to the considerable benefits provided by their thousands of years' experience.
Some of the tribes were discovered—if that is the right word—only in 1948, and that was their first contact with white men. Others have suffered terribly from disease. We would all be wise to care about the Xingu communities. I am mainly concerned with the climatological consequences, but it would be a very unfeeling Member of the British House of Commons who did not conclude by expressing deep feelings about those unique people—the Xingu tribespeople.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: My purpose in remaining here tonight was not so much to speak, but to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to the reply which I hope he will have elicited from the Minister. Having listened intently to my hon. Friend's extremely good exposition of the problems, I shall not repeat what he said, but will speak as a non-expert in the matter and say a few words on behalf of an awakening electorate.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the British electorate is becoming increasingly concerned. It is not an easy matter in which to awaken interest, but I have received thoughtful and anxious letters, and today I decided to try a little experiment. At lunchtime I visited a school in my area and spoke to youngsters aged between 11 and 16 about tonight's debate. I half expected them to think that we were quite crazy to be planning to discuss tropical rainforests in the early hours of the morning. I expected a dismissive response, but I was wrong. They were not deeply knowledgeable, but they were aware of the problem. I told the taxi driver who drove me to the station about this debate. I expected him to ask why I was not talking about Preston and to tell me that the problem was

a long way away. Far from it—he started telling me about the seriousness of the problem. I agree with my hon. Friend that people are being awakened to the issue by the recent television coverage which has given people knowledge in a way which is getting through to them and deeply disturbing them. As a non-expert who is deeply concerned about the planet, I wish to reflect the concern which is percolating through the population.
My hon. Friend described something quite awesome in its implications. I am concerned about all aspects of the environment and how we treat our soil and our plants, but some of the environmental issues that we usually discuss are small when compared with this one, which is so huge that it is vital that, regardless of political party—I do not often say that—we manage to grope towards some way of preventing the devastation that is taking place. Ii is not only destruction, but truly the devastation of our planet. Human beings do not have the right to devastate and destroy the planet.
I shall not attempt to repeat my hon. F'riend's arguments or marshal any more, because my hon. Friend has covered the ground so admirably. I hope that we will have an equal expression of concern and answers from the Government Front Bench. In so far as this is tied up with debt repayments, it is ludicrous that so much could be endangered for all of us for something as artificial as the way the world economy is conducted.
I helped to get the debate because I wanted the House to discuss the matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for his exposition.

Miss Joan Lestor: I shall not delay the House more than a couple of minutes. I know that the Minister wants to make quite a long statement, and we agreed on this earlier. I want to make two quick points. We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the matter and for the informative and knowledgeable presentation that he made. Those who are not here can read it in Hansard. It will enhance their knowledge and provide a basis for argument and discussion over the months and years ahead when the subject will command a great deal more attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has said.
Those of us who have been hon. Members for some time—apart from a break when I was resting, I have been here for a considerable time—will recall that when matters involving aid and development used to be raised there was not much interest. It took the Brandt report and things like that to inject a feeling of urgency into hon. Members on both sides of the House about what was happening in many Third world countries.
Reference has been made to the part played by the media, by the Friends of the Earth and by others in alerting people to what is happening to the environment and to the destruction that is taking place in many parts of the world. More and more people are becoming interested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has said, it is not a minor problem. We are talking about the end of the planet as we know it and about the sort of world that we will hand on to our children and our grandchildren—or not hand on, as the case may be.
I could not hope to match anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has said, but I have read a great deal of material from many organisations,


including Friends of the Earth. I just want to point out that on Friday we will have an opportunity to debate all questions involving aid, development, co-operation and the environment. I hope that some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will take the opportunity to extend the discussion that we have started.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this crucially important topic. I also join the hon. Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Eccles (Miss Lestor) in welcoming the way in which the House decided to raise the subject. The hon. Member for Preston rightly drew attention to the considerable importance that is being attached to the issue by youngsters and by people who, probably a matter of weeks or months ago, would have thought that someone had a screw loose if he started talking about the threat to the rain forests.
There is an increasing, perhaps unfortunately rather belated, understanding of the threat that is posed to all of us by the danger of environmental change on a rapid scale, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow outlined. If I may say so, without wishing to be in any way condescending, it is critical that at a time when public interest has been awakened, the House tackles the issue in a bipartisan way as far as possible, and in a way which does not over-simplify the solutions to an immensely complex subject, as the hon. Gentleman said. In other words, we must not draw the environment into our domestic yah-boo politics. The international community has not done that.
One of the most heartening features of last year's activity at the United Nations, particularly at the General Assembly, was the way in which all countries, from whatever geographical region, and whether from the Third world or the first world, concentrated on the threat posed by changes in the environment. It was a major—probably the major—theme of last year's General Assembly session. What took place there was a complex and serious discussion of a major threat. That, I believe, is how this subject should be tackled in our domestic debates, and we should do everything we can to ensure that the discussion continues in the same way internationally. I welcome in particular the hon. Gentleman's very astute assessment of the problems and opportunities that the international community faces as it discusses this complex issue with the Brazilian Government.
As I have said, the topic of this debate is extremely important, not just for the tens of millions of people living in the tropical rain forest, but also for us in northern Europe. The Government share the widespread public concern about the destruction of the rain forest. The present scale of that destruction is truly alarming. The latest internationally comparable figures that we have relate to 1980. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are more recent figures, which are subject to debate. For the purposes of illustration, however, let me use the 1980 figures.
They suggest that the annul loss of tropical forest of all kinds was 11 million hectares—an area the size of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together.

About 6 million hectares—slightly more than half of that—was rain forest in the broad sense. Preliminary figures for 1988 suggest that in Brazil alone an area greater than the whole of the United Kingdom was burned. By no means all of the burned area was previously rain forest, but it must be remembered that Brazil is not the only country affected. Rain forest is disappearing throughout the tropics—in the other countries of the Amazon basin, as I saw for myself in Peru; in central America, as I saw for myself; in west Africa; in Zaire, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Deforestation affects other types of forests also. Ethiopia has lost no less than 90 per cent. of its tree cover since 1900.
It has to be said that converting forest to agricultural land is not always bad. In Europe and North America, which are fortunate in having deep, fertile soils, it was possible to clear forests and to use the land for sustainable agriculture. The countries of the Amazon basin are not so fortunate. The soils below the lush vegetation of Amazonia are fragile and poor. When the forest is cut down and burned, the ash gives a once-and-for-all boost to the soils, but the minerals are soon leached out, and the organic matter destroyed. As a result, more often than not—indeed, almost always—agriculture is simply not sustainable.
The failure of the farmers' dreams is tragic but, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the process a resource of global environmental importance is being destroyed.
Forests can play a major part in checking the gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere. Mankind releases carbon dioxide into the air from power stations, transport systems, factories and homes. The forests naturally counteract that, partly by absorbing carbon dioxide, but as long as the forests are being cut down and burned at their present rates, that itself is contributing between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. to net global carbon dioxide emissions.
Of course, the burning of fossil fuels, mostly in the power stations of the developed world, contributes about 80 per cent. of net carbon dioxide emissions. So we, in the rich countries, must show that we are doing all that we can to solve the problems to which we are contributing. Nevertheless, the world cannot afford to ignore tropical deforestation in our studies of possible climate change.
We still have a lot to learn about long-term climate change. The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned the hopscotch effect and the dangers of a flip. However, I stress that the present general circulation models on climate do not allow us to predict regional change with any certainty, although it is true that there is now some evidence, for example, from west Africa, that the loss of rain forests affects local rainfall.
Britain is playing an active role in the intergovernmental panel on climate change in an effort to reduce the range of uncertainties. Her Majesty's Government will contribute about £750,000 to its work, which may well help to clarify the questions about the climatic consequences of deforestation in eastern Amazonia which have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
Forests are also important for their genetic diversity. It is not just the huge number of species in the forests that is important. Many of those species are highly adapted to their ecological niche and have valuable properties. It is no accident that 40 per cent. of all the drugs prescribed in the United States are based on chemicals derived from rain forest species.
I raised British concerns about the rate of forest loss when I visited Brazil late last year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I had extensive discussions on environmental issues, including rain forests specifically, with the visiting secretary general to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Itermaraty, when he visited London last week. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development learnt first-hand about the Amo-Indian perspective when he received a call from Chief Paiakan of the Kayapo.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, the Brazilian Government face a difficult dilemma in Amazonia. As President Sarnay told me last November, there is a need in Brazil to move away from the historical equation equating forest destruction with economic development, which has been the preception in Brazil for many years. However, we must understand that Brazil has a large and growing population and an understandable wish to achieve economic progress.
The difficulty that Brazil faces, like so many other countries, is how to square sensible development with environmental sensitivity and thus ensure the long-term viability of that development. When we in the United Kingdom went through our own industrial revolution, we took virtually no notice of the environmental implications; so I understand it when the Brazilians and other developing countries sometimes say, "Why can't we do exactly what you did a number of years ago?" The answer must be, "Whether you like it or not, since that time circumstances have changed." We must, however, understand the Brazilians' point of view. If we are to tackle the problems that they now acknowledge exist, it is right that we should work towards a sensible and co-operative approach and not a confrontation. If in the past Brazilian Government policies have contributed to rain forest destruction, pointing a finger at those policies will not do anybody much good. We must co-operate to introduce sensible future policies.
Recent moves in Brazil, such as the suspension of development grants for ranching operations in the Amazon region and the announcement that the Government would forcibly remove illegal gold diggers from Indian reserves, are hopeful signs. We must welcome those signs and encourage their effective implementation while continuing at the same time to monitor the situation extremely carefully.
There is no question of not respecting the sovereignty of Brazil or other countries facing similar dilemmas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow was right to underline this point during his recent visit to Brazil. Within the resources available, and our overall forestry sector aid strategy, the United Kingdom has a responsibility to provide practical support. I know from my discussions in Brasilia and those held last week that the Brazilian Government regard the Overseas Development Administration research project on Maraca island as a shining example of the positive international co-operation that Brazil will welcome to save the rain forests.
In very recent discussions, the Brazilian Government asked for further technical co-operation—possibly specifically to understand the genetic potential of the Amazon. This may well involve links between Brazilian and British institutions such as the royal botanic gardens in Kew, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We are considering this matter urgently.
Our technical assistance must and always will be modest when compared with the region's demands. No country has the manpower or financial resources to take on the Amazon single handed.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked, among other things—I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am unable to answer his questions in my speech—whether we could provide firefighting equipment. Having seen some of the extensive burning in Rondonia and Mato Grosso, I doubt whether the provision of firefighting equipment is the answer because of the scale on which that equipment would have to be provided. We must concentrate on preventing the burning occuring, but I undertake that we shall carefully consider Philip Morrice's report when we receive it.

Mr. Dalyell: Will particular attention be given to the climatological problem of what will happen when eastern Amazonia and Para are further destroyed? We must urgently discover what Dr. Lutzenberger and others who o have argued the case have to say and ask the authorities to conduct specific research about this immediate point.

Mr. Eggar: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a clear answer this morning on that. There are a number of reasons, not least being that any research carried out would have to be either bilaterally with the Brazilian Government, at their request, or multinationally, in an international body.

Mr. Dalyell: That is fair enough.

Mr. Eggar: Before the hon. Gentleman intervened. I was moving on to talk about our worldwide aid programme relating to rain forest destruction. Our forestry assistance course extends beyond the rain forests. We are helping those in arid areas who struggle against deforestation and its consequences—fuel wood shortages and soil erosion. Our bilateral aid concentrates on the poorest countries and on members of the Commonwealth. Those are not always the countries with extensive rain forest, so our forestry assistance worldwide covers the spectrum of research, reafforestation, conservation and training and is aimed at all types of forestry.
The ODA has committed about £80 million to bilateral forestry projects of all types, which are currently under way. They include support for 45 projects spread over 25 countries, funding for 16 research projects, assistance to at least 18 projects under the joint funding scheme, support for more than 70 British experts and 36 volunteers working as foresters and training awards for about 120 people from developing countries studying forestry in Britain. Details of those projects are given in a forestry supplement to the December 1988 issue of British Overseas Development; a copy of that is in the Library.
The record to date is impressive, but we want to do more. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged to the House:
We will direct more of our aid to encourage the wise and sustainable use of forest resources."—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 14.]
That pledge has resulted in a forestry initiative which is now under way. The forestry initiative has four components. First, we shall encourage recipient countries to direct more of the aid resources we provide to forestry. Obviously, we must respect countries' own priorities, so it would not be appropriate to set global expenditure targets for forestry aid. Nevertheless, ODA is just completing an


exercise to identify those countries where we feel that, as a country, we have a comparative advantage in offering forestry assistance. We shall discuss those possibilities with Governments with a view to identifying forestry projects with which we might be able to assist.
Secondly, we shall make an extra £500,000 a year available for international collaborative research. Trees are hundreds of years behind agricultural crops in selective breeding. The wealth of variation between and among species in the natural forests can be the basis for increases in future productivity comparable to the change from the gathering of wild grasses to the harvesting of modern rice and wheat crops. The exploration and conservation of the genetic resources of tropical forests have high priority in our forestry aid programme, as I saw for myself only two weeks ago when I visited an impressive project in Honduras.
Thirdly, we shall encourage British charities to put forward more forestry projects under the joint funding scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development recently announced a block grant to the World Wide Fund for Nature of £1 million in 1989–90, the financial year. Both ODA and the World Wide Fund for Nature agree that more than 70 per cent. of that money should go on forestry conservation projects.
The fourth component in the new initiative is training and institution strengthening. In addition to our bilateral effort, we play a role through international agencies and we contribute 16 per cent. to the European development fund, whose support for forestry includes the approval of £32 million worth of forestry projects in Africa since 1986. On top of that, the Community in 1988 allocated £5 million for reafforestation in central America. That is very badly needed, as I saw for myself on my recent visit to the Honduras and Guatemala. We have also contributed through the World bank, and in 1988 IBRD loans and IDA credits to the value of $168 million were approved for the forestry sector.

Mrs. Wise: May I ask the Minister a question before he leaves the subject of central America? I noted what he said. Will he bear in mind the destruction of trees in Nicaragua, which was exacerbated by the hurricane? I note that he did not mention Nicaragua in his list. Will he consider whether we should be making a contribution there?
Will he also bear in mind that, although the sums that he has mentioned will no doubt have been put to good use, they are very small in relation to the size of the problem? Tomorrow we shall hear of much largers sums going to much less useful purposes. May I suggest that our good intentions should be accompanied by the devotion of rather more money?

Mr. Eggar: I take the hon. Lady's point. I did not mention Nicaragua because I did not visit it. I know that the hon. Lady is aware that we gave substantial assistance to Nicaragua following the hurricane.
During my visit, I visited a regional forestry school set up in the centre of the Honduras as part of the help to Central America as a whole. That was a school that we helped, particularly on the forestry side, which is now entirely run by the Hondurans. Both there and at a similar school or college in Costa Rica, I was struck by the lack of attendance by citizens of other central American states.

We have already said that that needs to be pursued by the central Americans. We need to try to persuade them to make more use of the existing regional institutions.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Preston about the level of assistance, and I am sure that we shall have a chance to discuss the overall level of assistance on Friday. I am trying to show that we are placing considerable additional resources in the forestry sector as a direct result of the widespread concern and of the increased willingness of developing countries to ask for assistance in this sector. There is still some way to go, however.
As I said, donors are supporting the tropical forestry action plan, which is now active in more than 60 countries. We are directly involved in 20 of those countries.
It may help if I say something about what is known as "green conditionality". The Government do not support the kind of green conditionality that would mean our attempting to improve developing countries' environmental performance by threatening to withhold aid from them if they failed to reach certain standards. The hon. Member for Eccles knows our attitude to conditionality in general. We aim to promote in those countries sustainable economic and social development, so helping to relieve poverty, which often causes people to clear forests. We seek to improve those countries' institutional capacity to deal with environmental matters and to agree with them appropriate environmenal safeguards and individual projects.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to "debt-for-nature" swaps. Where such swaps are entered into voluntarily and genuinely release additional resources, they can be useful. I was told about such a scheme—one of the first of its kind—when I visited Bolivia. The hon. Member mentioned Sir Kit McMahon of the Midland bank. He might like to know that the Midland bank donated its entire Sudanese exposure of just $1 million to finance the health, water and reafforestation in the Kordofan region of Sudan. That is another example of a debt-for-nature swap. I should not want to overstate the scale of the potential contribution proposed by those debt-for-nature swaps.
Hon. Members are concerned about a possible World bank loan which some fear will destroy vast areas of the Amazon. I refer to the second power sector loan in Brazil.My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has publicly said that, although it seems that the proposed loan will not directly finance the construction of dams in the Amazon, we are acutely conscious of the need for appropriate safeguards for the environment and for Indian rights.
The loan—there is now some uncertainty about exactly what its status is—is unlikely to go before the World bank's executive board until May, and its precise terms are not yet known. My hon. Friend has undertaken to keep in close touch with concerned non-governmental organisations about it. We shall certainly consider extremely carefully the environmental and social aspects if and when a loan is put to the board. The latest information appears to be that there is a rethinking of the matter. We have not had clear information on that.
Environmental issues are being given much greater attention in the World bank, in part due to the efforts of the United Kingdom and several other members. The reorganisation of the World bank in 1987 strengthened its capacity to ensure that environmental costs and benefits


are systematically addressed in project appraisal. It is clear that the bank is aware of the sensitivities surrounding the proposal, but I repeat that we will need to look at the precise terms of any proposal.

Mr. Dalyell: I and some of my colleagues get the impression that the Americans are far more open about their directions to their director of the World bank than we are to the British director. Could there be a reflection within Government on why Parliament should not be told what instructions are being given to the British director of the World bank?

Mr. Eggar: There is possibly a difference in approach between us and the Americans on this matter. It relates to our reluctance to use our voting in the World bank as any kind of political lever or pressure—a reluctance which the Americans certainly do not go along with to the extent that we do.
That is illustrated by the fact that we have not voted on political grounds on loans to Nicaragua or to Chile. We have always voted specifically on technical grounds. That is the right approach. It leads us to a reluctance to be drawn into political assessments and statements about what instructions are given to our executive director. We prefer to concentrate much more on technical reasons. Obviously, because of the sensitivity of information, that is not normally disclosed, as discussions are behind closed doors.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that, to avoid the threat from new dams, the United Kingdom should give support to help get Brazil's nuclear power stations working effectively. As he himself acknowledges, that was a controversial statement when he made it in Brazil. The OECD sector agreement on nuclear power prohibits the use of tied bilateral aid for such projects.
Aid is by no means the only international activity with an effect on the rain forest. Trade is at least as important. It was for that reason that we were one of the first signatories to the agreement under which the International Tropical Timber Organisation was established. The agreement's objectives balance trade expansion and diversification with an ecologically sustainable approach to tropical forest management. The ITTO's members account for most of the trade in tropical timber.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has responsibility for this matter, and he recently had a meeting with the executive director of the ITTO. We believe that action through the ITTO on a global basis offers a promising line of approach to achieve sustainable management of commercial tropical forestry.
Some believe such management to be impossible and have argued for a ban on tropical timber imports from non-sustainable sources. Any such proposal would be restrictive and need careful consideration, not least in the EEC context. I know that my hon. Friend wishes to keep all possibilities under review.
The DTI is also considering the implications of the Anglo-Dutch timber trade's proposal for a levy on tropical timber imports to be channelled through the ITTO.
We would all agree that we have had an important and interesting debate, even if it is at an unreasonably anti-social hour. I hope that I have reassured Opposition Members that the Government share their concern about the global effects of rain forest destruction. Aid, trade and international dialogue all have an important role to play in this extremely complex problem. The Government are actively pursuing all three. As the problem becomes ever more widely recognised, I am confident that we shall be able to achieve more, but whatever we do must be in partnership with the countries that are the homes to the rain forests. Without their co-operation, we shall not be able to succeed.

Orders of the Day — Electronic Surveillance Devices

Mr. James Cran: I am pleased to have been able to secure a debate on an important subject that I consider is much misunderstood in this country and, indeed, has been the subject of enormous exaggeration. It relates to the growing availability in this country of electronic surveillance equipment that essentially can be bought by anyone, whether that individual be law-abiding or not. It is a matter of concern to me—I believe, too, that it is of some concern to a growing number of other people—that there are an increasing number of advertisements appearing in all sorts of newspapers and magazines for such equipment. The last advertisement to catch my attention was in The Daily Telegraph. It said:
Discreet listening, recording and counter-surveillance equipment".
Whoever was interested simply had to contact a company called Lorraine Electronics Surveillance that is based in London. I stress that this is only one advertisement of many and simply gives the flavour. The words that offend me in that advertisement are "discreet listening", which could be the subject of all sorts of abuse.
My concerns are evidenced by the fact that I have written to the Home Secretary on more than one occasion, the last occasion being on 10 February of this year. I have also tabled a number of questions to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. All of these questions, of course, have been transferred to other Departments. In other words, I have not yet been able to get the Home Department to answer a question on the subject. It is not that the Home Department is evading answering the questions, but that the entire area of electronic surveillance is policed not by the Home Department, but by other Departments.
I am pursuing this question, because I believe that the use of such devices could—I emphasise "could"—constitute an invasion of privacy that I am bound to say I consider to be offensive.
Little information is available on such equipment, which is evidenced by the amount of people who have telephoned me and have asked, "Are you speaking about ID tagging for prisoners?" I will not mention names, but many people have asked that question. I believe that that proves how little is known about the matter. Moreover, there is little case law on the subject either. The last case I was able to discover was the Woolworth and Dixons case that I believe highlighted how ineffective and confused the law is. The industry has informed me that this ineffective and essentially confused law has resulted in a much increased demand for the equipment. That is borne out by the managing director of Lorraine Electronics Surveillance, who in the magazine Your Business in June 1988 said:
Press reports of bugging"—
as he chose to call it
represent the tip of the iceberg."—
That is his judgment and I take that statement for what it is worth. The article went on:
Lorraine's 1987 turnover was reported to be 50 per cent. up on 1986, which in turn was 100 per cent. up on 1985.
The company expected the increase in business to continue in the foreseeable future.
I am perfectly willing to concede that such devices, which I shall consider in detail later, can be bought and sold for quite legitimate purposes. I am entitled to say,

however, that it may not always be the case. This is illustrated by the words of the managing director of Lorraine Electronics Surveillance who said in Your Business:
I never sit in judgement or moralise about why a company or individual should be buying surveillance equipment.
That is an interesting statement. Some of us may wonder why he and his colleagues do not ask questions about why some equipment is bought. Such an obligation is placed on the sellers of a considerable amount of merchandise in Britain. Why, therefore, is a similar obligation not imposed on the sellers of surveillance equipment?
One can only make a judgment about such equipment if one has studied it, as I have, in detail. It is clear that the great technological advances that have occurred have resulted in the development of many miniaturised devices for the market. They can be hidden in everyday household and office equipment. Such devices are normally extremely powerful and can pick up conversations without the knowledge of those conversing. That is offensive and I profoundly disagree with that practice.
National security considerations may justify the use of such equipment and it might be used to crack drug rings and other extreme criminal activity. No case can be made, however, for ordinary people going into such establishments in high streets to buy this equipment for relatively modest sums.
The brochures claim that some equipment is sold for export only—apparently if it was sold on the home market it would contravene a number of our laws. No check, however, is made to verify whether such equipment has been exported or whether it is used here. A number of us believe that some of this equipment is being used here in contravention of our laws and of the claims made in the brochures. The description of the available devices demonstrate that the business is obnoxious.
To establish the facts, I obtained brochures and information from a number of companies chosen at random. There are many such companies, but I chose these: Glideglen Electronics, of St. Osyth in Essex; Sirius Security, of Hull; Cumberworth Security, of Hull; Ruby Electronics Ltd, of Leyton in London; Lorraine Electronics Surveillance, also of Leyton; and the Surveillance and Security Centre, in London. I repeat that companies in this line of business are mushrooming as a result of the outcome of the case that I mentioned.
The first brochure I examined came from Glideglen Electronics. I propose to flit through one or two of the products that are on offer. The Envelope Transmitter is
the ultimate in covert transmitting bugs, and with its super sensitive input stage and stable output stage, it can be hidden anywhere … Its size allows it to be inserted into a 9 × 4 envelope or smaller. It could then be dropped into a waste paper basket in the target room"—
I stress the word "target"—
or pinned to a notice board, or simply left on a desk.
The words speak for themselves.
One can also buy a Concrete Microphone:
The CM1 is a complete listening device, which will penetrate walls up to a foot thick.
One is entitled to wonder why anyone would want to listen to a conversation in a room with such walls for legitimate purposes.
Next, there is the Contact Window Transmitter:


This intriguing little device is a transmitter fitted with a special contact transducer. It sticks to a window or door etc. and picks up the sounds inside, and transmits to a suitable receiver. It has a range of up to 1,000 yards".
Then there is the Micro 7 Transmitter:
A specially developed transmitter for monitoring conversations taking place within a vehicle, with a range of up to 3 miles".
Why would anyone legitimately want to listen to a conversation in a car that far away if it was not for improper purposes?
One can also buy what is called a Mains Transmitter, which is
a tiny transmitter built in a standard 13amp multi plug adaptor, and in no way does it affect its appearance or working. It is powered by the mains supply, so no batteries are needed. You just plug in and tune in!
The last sentence is revealing. It means that someone can plug in to someone else's business. That is a gross invasion of privacy.
A Pen Transmitter is also available:
The PT1 is a tiny powerful transmitter, built inside a standard Schafer Ball Point Pen, complete with batteries and a micro miniature mic (and it still writes!) This is a major breakthrough in personal surveillance equipment, its tiny mic has the capability of picking up speech from 25 feet away, with crystal clarity.
The Calculator Transmitter is the same as the Pen Transmitter. There is also a wonderful device known as the Infinity Transmitter:
For transmission via the public telephone system. This device will allow you to monitor sounds or conversations within the area of the target telephone"—
that is an interesting use of the word "target"—
from any telephone anywhere in the world.
Madam Deputy Seaker, it seems to me, as I have already said, that any of this equipment could be used for proper purposes, but under present circumstances it is at least equally possible to say that that equipment could be used for improper purposes.
That seems to me also to be illustrated by something sold by a company called Sirius Security of Hull, called a Covert Interview Recorder. I quote from the brochure:
The interview recorder system has been designed to facilitate the recording of interviews and conversations, whether they take place in the office or in the street, with the recording system totally hidden about one's person.
There is a marvellous drawing showing how all this stuff can be hidden behind lapels or in pockets. The brochure goes on:
The seed microphone is ideally hidden under the lapel of a jacket or down the sleeve, where it will pick up sounds in a radius of the user from whatever angle the conversation takes place. The system can be activated and de-activated covertly"—
one again wonders why, but it can indeed be—
without suspicion as and when required during a conversation by an apparently innocent movement.
One is bound to ask why equipment such as this is available in the United Kingdom, in the sort of society I and other hon. Members of the House belong to. I simply fail to understand why anybody would have this recorder hidden on his person to record conversations except for dubious reasons.
The last of these interesting devices which I bring to the House's attention and which I would ask you to consider buying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is something called "the remarkable recording briefcase." What does the brochure say here?
To all intents and purposes, both inside and out, it simply looks like a high quality executive leather case.

Indeed, if one looks at this wonderful picture, that is precisely what it is.
Even close scrutiny does not reveal the microphone and concealed electronics that enable one to record conversations in a most discreet manner.
Again, what sort of conversations have to be recorded in this discreet manner if one is simply talking, as ordinary people talk, in a law-abiding and legitimate way? The brochure goes on to say:
Open or closed, even locked and unattended, the Recording Briefcase will monitor conversation with exceptional clarity.
"With exceptional clarity"—is that not marvellous to know, Madam Deputy Speaker? Nothing less will do. It goes on to say:
Briefing notes easily verified and as for those copious Board Meeting notes—a thing of the past!
How comforting that must be for all boards of directors in this country and how uncomfortable it must be for all company secretaries who will be done out of a job. Perhaps members of the Cabinet may now be able to turn up at Cabinet meetings with recording briefcases and we will therefore not require the services of the Cabinet Secretary. How interesting.
The point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this would be funny were it not also so very serious, because, as I have said before, it is fairly clear that all of these devices, whilst they may be used for legitimate purposes, could be used for improper purposes to invade the privacy of the people of this country. That is quite disgraceful.
Another factor which illustrates why this situation may get out of hand is, of course, the growth in sales of counter-surveillance equipment. The equipment is only necessary if surveillance equipment is used improperly. The growth of the counter-surveillance industry shows that the possibility exists that surveillance equipment devices are getting into the wrong hands or are being sold without questions being asked.
We should remember that the managing director of Lorraine Electronics Surveillance said that he did not look too closely at the morality of people buying such equipment. If that is so, it is no surprise to me that some of the equipment is sold to the wrong people without any questions being asked.
If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must refer to the brochures again. Madam Deputy Speaker, you could buy the RFD and the RFD-X counter surveillance equipment which, according to the brochure, has
been designed to provide the individual"—
note the word "individual"—
with a simple and effective means of detecting and locating radio frequency surveillance devices. Radio signals are present in all areas and the function of both detectors is to isolate and help identify transmissions that could represent a threat.
Again we must wonder about the nature of the threat. However, a threat could occur. I remember when I was the west midlands director of the Confederation of British Industry that a company that was being taken over discovered an electronic surveillance device under the boardroom table. The suspicion was that someone was listening in to conversations for nefarious purposes which might have led to a profit.
In addition to the counter-surveillance devices to which I have referred, you could, Madam Deputy Speaker, buy what is called the "Body-Worn Detector". According to the brochure, that is a


Pocket-sized device that silently vibrates, thus alerting the user of a possible transmission threat.
There is also a "Telephone and Wiring Analyser" and even a "Hand-Held Detector". According to the brochure, the "Hand-Held Detector" is a
Simple and easy to use"—
how wonderful to know that this equipment is so easy to use—
instrument devised to offer immediate and portable protection from electronic invasion.
In view of that galaxy of obnoxious equipment, what protection is offered by the law? Having gone into that question in considerable detail, it seems that the law does not offer a great deal of protection. I would be delighted to be overruled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State if I am wrong, but I understand that a "bug" may be placed in the customised briefcase to which I drew the attention of the House earlier, or the pen or calculator, and that is not an illegal act.
I am advised, and again I would be delighted to be contradicted, that using this equipment to record conversations is also not illegal. It is illegal if any of the devices transmits an unauthorised radio signal, and then it will breach the wireless and telegraphy legislation. That betrays at least one of the reasons why my questions to the Home Office are transferred to other Departments and in that case to the Department of Trade and Industry, because it oversees the wireless and telegraphy legislation.
Illegality can also occur when the equipment is used in conjunction with telephone instruments or lines. Again, that could, depending on the circumstances, contravene the relevant Telecommunications Act.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary understands the situation perfectly well, as do most people who have investigated the subject. In his letter to me dated 4 August 1988, he recognised the severe limitation of the Acts, commenting:
However, radio surveillance devices are unlikely to cause interference to other radio users simply because if they did their use would quickly be detected and their purpose defeated.
My point is that the devices I have described are being sold but their use is "controlled" by only two Acts that are fairly ineffective—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has himself admitted.
Against that background, one must again ask whether such devices are in the public interest. I make no bones about my belief that the answer is a resounding no. The only question that remains is how should the law be changed to reflect what ordinary individuals expect. In my right hon. Friend's letter to me of 4 August last, he recognises the difficulties, saying:
I understand your concern about the availability and use of these devices, though at present I do not believe a case has been made out for controls over their sale and use.
I have written again to my right hon. Friend with copies of all the material from which I have quoted, saying that I believe a case for controls has been made. If he believes otherwise, I invite him to explain his reasons, so that those of us who believe that there is a problem can mobilise an argument to which my right hon. Friend will be prepared to listen.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in favour of some action being taken, and I believe that that emanates from a Law Commission report entitled "The Law on the Breach of Confidence", proposing that those

who obtain information by improper means should be subject to the obligation not to use or disclose that information thereby gained. My right hon. Friend says that if such disclosure took place, that could trigger a civil action for breach of confidence. He adds:
I should like to reflect on whether this is an idea which we should take forward.
If my right hon. Friend decides on that course of action, that will be an advance, but I still think that it would be inadequate and have made that view known to my right hon. Friend. The problem is that his suggestion would not prevent invasion of privacy, but would only restrict the use to which the knowledge gained by the use of surveillance devices could be put. Even then, the question arises as to whether one can prove that privacy has been invaded in the first place.
I have tried to demonstrate, by describing the grubby selection of devices that can be bought in this country, that people's privacy can be invaded and that they may never know about it. Few people would go to the lengths of buying counter-surveillance equipment to combat the electronic surveillance equipment used to invade their privacy. I argue that privacy may be invaded, and profit made from the information thereby gained, but that the individual or the company concerned could never know. To illustrate the point, industrial espionage in this country and in America is a growing phenomenon—secrecy is of the essence.
I have been dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that regulation is necessary. I say that because like most Conservative Members I am in favour of deregulation, not regulation. In this instance, however, I feel that the ideal solution is for such devices to be illegal unless explicitly licensed. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others would have reservations, and if it is impossible to achieve that end perhaps the next best solution is the one that my right hon. Friend has cited—but not in isolation. Civil action for breach of confidence is not enough on its own, and it makes it very difficult for the individual to go to law—in this country, civil law.
I feel, therefore, that we also need a code of practice among retailers and manufacturers. There are plenty of precedents: individuals have got together in the past to "regulate" their own industry. There should also be a register of people who are buying the equipment—and, indeed, selling it—so that those of us who are worried about where it is going can check up after the event, under the aegis of the Home Office or the police.
Let me repeat that all too little is known about this topic. Many people put the blind eye to the telescope and say that the industry need not be investigated, because the equipment being sold is not used for illegal purposes. I am not prepared to come to that conclusion. I think that this is a nasty little industry, which is mushrooming and which capitalises on the fact that it is unregulated. All sorts of practices are beginning to develop, and I should like to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to clean them up—because this industry does indeed need cleaning up.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on introducing such an interesting topic, albeit so early in the morning. We should be grateful for any opportunity of hearing about it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of pinpointing


the Department responsible. The Minister, whom I saw just before the debate, insisted that the DTI Minister would be at the Dispatch Box, and it gives some indication of the confusion that the Minister of State, Home Office is there instead.
This is a serious matter, and it is linked with others. Only this weekend I was discussing with a number of people the growing practice of large companies of recording every telephone call made or received by their employees. I understand that the practice is now widespread, and that employees have no right to know whether their conversations are being recorded. Most people consider telephone conversations to be private affairs: a kind of right of privacy is involved.
I am told by a reliable source, however, that increasing numbers of large companies—banks, stock exchange firms and so on—automatically record all conversations. They do not tell their employees or members of the public who telephone the company. That is another aspect suggesting that we are becoming an Orwellian state. It is easy to go too far and to regard such practices as a great danger and to make everyone paranoid. Individual rights of privacy have to be based on the facts of the late 20th century and not the rights that Thomas Paine and other great philosophers of the 18th century discussed. We associate the 18th century with the Bill of Rights and the establishment of the rights of the individual, but those rights were drawn up in the 18th century and were appropriate to the demands and problems that the 18th century imposed on the thoughts of those individuals.
The hon. Member for Beverley was absolutely right to draw our attention to the fact that individual rights of privacy have to take account of very disturbing trends, including electronic bugging. He covered the problem of industrial espionage extremely well. We all know that a large number of people in Britain are interested in information about patents and hard-won scientific knowledge. It would be grossly unfair if it were easy for one company to steal patented rights and secrets, or scientific or technical information from another company before patents had been obtained. It is not simply a question of one domestic company pursuing the secrets of another; it is big international business. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the problems of checking the importation of equipment, because if it is not available in Britain, it is certainly available abroad.
The private security industry has grown tremendously in the past 10 or 20 years and perhaps longer. Only recently the Association of Chief Police Officers expressed concern about 650 private security firms which were unlicensed and many of which could be described as cowboy firms. The Government are reluctant to do anything about the unregulated private security industry. I received a reply from the Minister only last week about the private security industry, stating that the Government intend to do nothing except encourage self-regulation. If one combines that with the growth of electronic surveillance techniques, the problem reaches worrying proportions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, of course there are legitimate purposes for electronic surveillance equipment, but they must occupy a very small percentage of the market. Control of the market would run counter to the Government's market philosophy, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some regulation is necessary.
To introduce a note of controversy, an example of the way in which modern technology can influence human

rights is the appalling suggestion from the Government of electronic tagging, which the Opposition believe would be a great infringement on the rights of individuals, be they convicted criminals or on remand. We should investigate and ponder the matter thoroughly before taking any steps in that direction.
I do not want to keep the House any longer than necessary but in modern technology terms there is also a parallel with the Government's reluctance to change the law on the practice of hacking, or tapping into the computers of firms, Government institutions and so on, where again we have been lagging behind other countries in recognising the dangers that can be posed to individuals, to corporations and to state security. I know that there are moves afoot to do something.
We should not consider the issue piecemeal by saying, "There is a problem with electronic devices," or "There is a problem with hacking." We should examine the whole subject of the relationship of individual rights and the right to privacy in relation to changes in modern technology. It would be better to consider it all in the round. It is such a complex and interesting area for future development that I hope the Minister can give us signs that he has an open mind on the way in which we should go, and that he does not say that nothing can be done or that he is reluctant to do anything.
I remember shortly after becoming a Member listening to a debate that I thought belonged to cloud-cuckoo-land. Lord Wilson, as he now is, introduced a debate on modern systems of television communication. He talked about satellite beaming and various television channels. Most hon. Members thought that the illustrious gentleman had gone a bit far and that his imagination was taking over. At that time most of us believed that we were talking about science fiction. That was only 10 years ago. Of course, satellite television is with us now.
Electronic surveillance is a minor problem at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what is increasingly becoming a problem for individuals. Whichever political side we are on in the House, we have a problem with part of the press. The irony is that, while we have probably the best serious press in the world, we also have perhaps the worst popular press. It makes me shudder to think of the use that the tabloid press, and certain proprietors, could make or perhaps are making—we do not know—of electronic surveillance techniques to penetrate the homes, offices and secret parts of people's lives.
People have a right to privacy and a right to know that what they say within four walls is confidential to them, their business associates and their family. What would happen if electronic surveillance equipment was in the hands of unscrupulous people? I believe that certain elements of the tabloid press are totally unscrupulous. One has only to think of the tragic consequences of the behaviour of the tabloid press in recent weeks. I am thinking of a ghastly suicide that was directly caused by the News of the World in the last few months. It was dramatically illustrated on BBC radio last week. If one thinks about such irresponsibility being linked to electronic surveillance equipment, it makes the case very strong for urgent Government action and regulation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I am not sure whether I should congratulate or commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on his success in securing the opportunity to raise at this unseemly hour the subject of electronic surveillance devices. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) got out of bed unnecessarily, thinking that this debate was to be answered by a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry. I should point out that the next debate too is to be answered by a Home Office Minister. This shows the great devotion to duty, of Ministers and officials alike, in the Home Department.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the persistence that he has shown in pursuing this subject and for the detailed and very interesting way in which he made his case tonight. His concern about the availability and use of these devices and about their implications for personal privacy is well known. I think he was slightly inaccurate in saying that every one of his parliamentary questions on this subject had been transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. According to my records, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department did answer one of his questions on the subject on 2 March. It is possible that the Under-Secretary would be answering this debate tonight if he were not unfortunately indisposed.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the possible misuse of some of the very sophisticated equipment that is on the market. He gave us a riveting and worrying account of what is currently available, although I must say that the recording briefcase to which he referred had a touch of humour about it—almost a touch of the conjuror. Hon. Members might use it as a means of stretching their secretarial allowances.
What my hon. Friend said about the distastefulness of the practices of monitoring and surveillance that he described is entirely correct. However, I have to say to him and to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that, when we come to consider the possibility of effectively controlling such devices, there are a number of very real difficulties. It would not generally be practicable or desirable to contemplate prohibiting the sale or use of particular devices—for two reasons. First, it would be difficult to define "devices" in any meaningful way that would not soon be obsolete and ineffective, bearing in mind the rapid pace of technological development. Secondly, it is unlikely that there would be any device that could not be represented as having some legitimate use.
The Younger report on privacy, to which I shall refer at one or two points in my remarks, contains a long and detailed section on technical surveillance devices, and devotes several pages to a discussion of the various legitimate uses to which such equipment may be put—for example, by those concerned with the acquisition and dissemination of news, including material for investigative and documentary journalism, and by those engaged in detective work.
There is also a problem about trying to identify the circumstances in which the use of these devices might be controlled. As our debate a few weeks ago on the Protection of Privacy Bill, which was introduced by my

hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), demonstrated, it is extremely difficult to frame an acceptable definition of "privacy".
As Younger noted, the privacy of any situation will depend entirely on the circumstances:
While there may be situations such as the home, the office, and the hotel bedroom, which might be said, prima facie, to be private, circumstances willed or unwilled can render them obviously not private; and there are many other situations which reasonable people would agree were private, but which occur in public places.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield was quite right in saying that the right to privacy has to be watched very carefully at a time when companies are making a habit of recording the telephone conversations of their employees. The fact remains that this definition of "privacy" still lies at the heart of the problems that we explored in the long debate on the private Member's Bill the other day.
The Younger committee saw merit in the creation of a criminal offence of surreptitious surveillance by means of a technical device. The ingredients of such an offence would be the use of a device in circumstances where, were it not for that use, the person who was the object of that surveillance would be justified in believing that he had protected himself or his possessions from such surveillance.
The committee recognised that the major problem of controlling surreptitious surveillance by devices was that, of its very nature, it is difficult to detect. A large number of elements would need to be present, for example, a technical device—I have just mentioned the difficulty of definition in that context—then surreptitious use, the person under surveillance, a set of circumstances where the person under surveillance believed himself to be protected, an intention by the user to overcome that protection, and absence of consent. by the victim.
Enforcement of new legislation to control that type of activity would therefore be more than usually difficult. It is that consideration which has led successive Governments to take the view that, on balance, it would not be useful to legislate as Younger proposed. For this reason too, successive Governments have not been attracted to Younger's suggestion that advertising of such devices, with reference to their aptness for surreptitious surveillance, was an incitement to commit an offence.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Younger committee rejected proposals that there should be any more general remedy for the protection of privacy, but it drew attention to the availability of the existing action for breach of confidence, which it considered was potentially capable of affording greater protection to privacy than had hitherto been realised. However, since the committee found the action for breach of confidence to be somewhat uncertain in its scope, it recommended that the matter be referred to the Law Commission.
The commission presented its report on this subject in 1981. It noted Younger's recommendation for a criminal offence of surreptitious surveillance and, while emphasising that it was concerned with the civil and not the criminal law, it made it clear that the acquisition of information by the sort of technical devices which Younger had in mind had implications in its view for the civil law of confidence. It accordingly recommended that there should be an obligation of confidence in respect of information obtained by the use of any surveillance device, provided that such information would not have been acquired without the use of that device. Those who acquired the


information would, in other words, be subject to a legal obligation not to use or disclose it; and if they did so they would be liable to be sued in the civil courts in an action for breach of confidence.
This approach, suggested by the Law Commission, seems to have the advantage of concentrating on the real mischief, which is the use to which information obtained by surveillance is put, and it provides the victim with a direct means of redress.

Mr. Cran: I understand what the Law Commission recommended, but the problem with the proposal, as I made clear, is that it presupposed that the individual who has been listened in to knows what has happened. The problem is that he may not know that he has been listened in to; the company may not know, for example, that its patent information had been stolen from it. Therefore, they would not be in a position, for some considerable time, to take action. Thus, profits could be made and a coach and horses could be driven through the proposal that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just outlined.

Mr. Renton: I appreciate that that point lies at the heart of the difference of opinion between my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this issue. I repeat that my right hon. Friend has stated that he finds this a sensible way forward in a difficult area and is therefore attracted to the Law Commission's approach. Legislation on the report would be a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has a number of other legislative preoccupations at present. I understand, therefore, that he is unable to regard implementation of the report as a matter to which high priority should be given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley drew the House's attention to what he regards as possible deficiencies in the Law Commission's proposals, but he acknowledged that to legislate as it proposes would be an improvement on the present position. My hon. Friend made the perfectly fair point that this would not prevent the invasion of privacy but only restrict the use to which the knowledge might be put, assuming the individual realised that his privacy had been invaded.
The difficulty, as I have already suggested, is to define a satisfactory concept of personal privacy, and to establish in what circumstances the individual can legitimately claim a right to privacy. One of the early chapters of the Younger report is entitled "What is privacy?" One does not have to read far into that chapter to discover that the majority of the committee took the view that the concept of privacy cannot be satisfactorily defined. Attempts to do so either went wide, equating the rights to privacy with what Judge Cooley last century termed "the right to be let alone", or boiled down to a catalogue of assorted values to which the adjectives "private" or "personal" could reasonably, but not exclusively, be attached.
In addition to the definitional problems, there is the fact that privacy cannot be an absolute right. As Younger remarked:
A man's right to privacy has to be balanced against the rights of others; any additional protection which the law may afford to privacy may be found to impinge upon such other rights, in particular the right of free communication of the truth and comment upon it, which are generally accepted as of great importance in a democratic society.

Mr. Cran: I do not wish to prolong discussion, and I understand that privacy is not an absolute concept. I

referred to a company that is the subject of a takeover finding a bug under its boardroom table. Does my hon. Friend agree that that company has a right to privacy when determining its takeover policy? The concept of privacy in such a case would be absolute. My hon. Friend cannot possibly be saying that somebody has a right to listen to those private conversations.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend's comment that the right to privacy would be absolute is interesting and would lead one down a philosophical path at this late hour.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Go on.

Mr. Renton: I am tempted by my hon. Friend.
I asked earlier to what use such information would be put. I agree that in normal circumstances one would regard such behaviour as eavesdropping, but to what use would the information be put? Would it be used in insider dealing on the stock exchange? If so, one returns to my earlier point—which was the substance of what Younger and the Law Commission considered—that it is important to know to what use the information, whether it was acquired by invasion of privacy or bugging, was put.
Much of the interesting debate on the Protection of Privacy Bill centred on the question, if privacy was invaded, to what disadvantage would that put the individual or company concerned? That leads on to the view that the law on the right to privacy is intertwined with the law of defamation and confidentiality.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the great distinction between the two propositions is that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) relates to an invasion of privacy occasioned by a newspaper? In such a case everybody, including the individual concerned, knows who is being got at. The problem of the cases that I have outlined is that, because of the sophistication of the devices, one may never know.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is right. The debate about the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester fastens round the right to privacy in newspapers. But the Younger committee and the Law Commission widened the issue, and it is impossible to consider enshrining the right to privacy from newspaper intrusions without also going into the wider sphere. One immediately comes to the difficult queston of the definition of privacy. One man's idea of privacy is not necessarily another man's. One man's idea of privacy on a holiday might be another man's idea of boredom, as we know well. That is why it is difficult to be so exclusive about the idea of privacy in relation to newspapers only and I am sure that my hon. Friend takes that point on board.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why it seems to us, in view of those real problems, to be preferable to adopt the more limited approach proposed by the Law Commission rather than to contemplate a more general right to privacy. Those are matters that the House may have the opportunity to debate again, as the Protection of Privacy Bill has obtained its Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley asked specifically whether a licensing system is in place for surveillance devices. There are no controls on the scale and use of such equipment, although such devices may be subject to other, technical considerations. However, we should not overlook the legislation we introduced in 1985


dealing with the interception of the public telecommunications system and the post. If the use of electronic surveillance equipment involves such interception, the criminal offences and penalties set out in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 could come into play.
The Government are not persuaded that it is practicable or necessary to extend the criminal law to cover electronic or other surveillance or eavesdropping, objectionable though such activities can undoubtedly be. A criminal offence must be clearly defined, well understood and capable of effective enforcement. It would be difficult to define an offence in this area without making it so narrow that it was easily evaded or soon overtaken by new technology, or so wide that it was unreasonable and unenforceable in practice.
We are not attracted to a scheme of licensing particular devices which would inevitably involve complex and bureaucratic procedures, requiring invidious judgments to be exercised about whether individuals had established a legitimate use for the device in question, without providing any confidence that those who wanted to acquire and use such equipment would be deterred from doing so in practice. However, we see merit in the more limited proposal made by the Law Commission and have undertaken to introduce new legislation along those lines. Such legislation must take its due place in the order of our legislative priorities.
I am sorry that I cannot promise my hon. Friend all that he would like, but I can assure him that we take his points seriously. I shall see that they are made known to my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to debate these serious matters tonight.

Orders of the Day — Religious Cults (Government Funding)

Mr. Alan Meale: Over a three-year period, the Government have funded the organisation INFORM from the Home Office funds to the tune of at least £120,000 a year. I am told that the organisations's initials stand for "Information Network Focus on Religious Movements". I am reliably informed that it has never inspired any confidence among those working in the field to help combat the effects that people suffer as a result of their involvement in religious cults. There is no evidence of the organisation helping—by advice or counselling—the parents or loved ones of those unlucky enough to be caught up in the web of deceit. It has done nothing to help those who seek to help relatives or advise them on the facts and methods available in their time of need.
In fact, this Government-funded organisation seems to serve the opposite purpose, especially in dealing with requests for information or advice on religious cults—notably that requested on the pseudo-religious organisation, the Unification Church, which I shall refer to by its more common title, "the Moonies". Why was a leading member—a director—of INFORM, Mrs. Irene Barker, described recently by the Moonies' information unit, based at 44 Lancaster Gate, London, as their consultant with outside bodies on their activities if no sympathy existed between the two organisations? Why would that same organisation, which is widely distrusted by everyone connected with religion in the United Kingdom, welcome the establishment of INFORM—a body which, shortly after its formation, changed the description of "cults" in its literature to "new religious movements" to match its own title?
The Moonies' recognition of INFORM is one of the major reasons why I feel that Government funding of the organisation should immediately cease. It has to be reiterated that groups such as the Moonies cannot be treated in a casual manner by any Government-funded or supported agency. Incidences of the Moonies activities are many; indeed they are too numerous to list as they would probably fill the pages of Hansard.
Nevertheless, I want to give the Minister a good idea of the Moonies' size and activities, so I ask him to note my list of organisational fronts. I shall set out at least some of the Moonies' conglomerate multinational operations. There are at least 33 Moonie recruiting fronts, ranging from the World Family Movement to the Hope academy based in California in the United States. Moonie religious fronts number about 24, of which the Unification Church and the Sun Myung institution in Korea are but two. There are at least 21 Moonie political fronts—the "Captive Nations" group and "Project of Unity" among them. Moonie media fronts include organisations, newspapers and magazines that knowingly promote the Moonie message. There are at least three such fronts, including the "World Student Times", "New Hope News" and the "Unified World". There are at least 37 Moonie cultural and social fronts, ranging from the International Cultural Foundation to the Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation.
Then there are the Moonie businesses. Outside the United Kingdom there are at least 119, ranging from businesses dealing in ice-packed sea foods in Alaska to jewellery shops in Maine in the United States to cosmetic manufacturing in Toronto, Canada. There are even


companies in Korea engaged in M16 rifle production, in newspapers in Japan and in hotels and casinos in Uruguay. There are undoubtedly many more businesses connected directly with the organisation, but it is the British connection as yet unmentioned with which I should like to deal.
The Minister is aware that a considerable number of Moonie-related companies exist or have existed in Britain. For example, in my constituency of Mansfield, with the help of the Free Press Recorder, a local newspaper, I have uncovered evidence of a printing supply business currently named Crescent Printing Services, based at Church lane, Mansfield. I am led to believe that it is the main printing house of the Moonie religious cult in the United Kingdom. At present, its manager is one Anthony Nicholas Dixon of 50 Victoria street, Mansfield, who also holds a directorship of Unified Family Enterprises and was a director of New Tomorrow Ltd., before that company was dissolved on 12 January 1988.
Both of those companies are undoubtedly Moonie front businesses, as their other company directorships are all registered as being based at the same address in Lancaster gate, London, the Moonie organisation's national nerve centre. In his diligent efforts to uncover the truth about the operations of the Moonie cult, Mr. Stephen Carr, the chief reporter of my local newspaper the Free Press Recorder, has established, via Companies House, other factors of connection between the aforementioned companies. His examination of company records revealed that some of the directors involved are also directly linked to the Moonies' main controlling boards in London.
For instance, I refer to Martin John Warner, Alexander Kenneth Stewart, Timothy John Miller, Michael Leslie Breen, David Fraser Harris, and Doris Barbara Orme, all well-known senior Moonie figures, together with one Dennis Frederick Orme, the ex-head of the Moonie cult organisation in the whole of the United Kingdom. Other companies listed as being involved with Moonie figures connected with that company are Alexander Wiltshire Limited, Ocean Fresh Limited, Omega Bakeries Limited, Holy Oak Community Limited, the East Lothian Shipbuilding and Fishing Co. Limited, and many others.
Both main link companies share one major similarity, that all shares in them are or were held jointly in the keeping of the trustees of the Sun Myung Moon foundation, the main financial clearing house of the Moonies' worldwide operations.
The Minister is aware that major challenges in the United Kingdom have already been made to the registration of the Moonies as a charitable body. Alas, I am sad to say that, so far, the Attorney-General has failed to act because of what he described as no exact proof that the charitable body was not functioning as a charity.
That view is not good enough for the House. It has not taken me long to get evidence that, rather than being charitable, that body is operating purely as a business venture, with the added advantage of its status, coupled with worse employment practices than any business should ever be allowed. For instance, there is definite evidence that many of the people employed in the ventures that I have mentioned are not paid for their endeavours. In some cases they are paid, but, immediately on being paid, they are asked to sign a form stating that they have donated their pay in total or in part to the Moonie organisation.
I have in my possession some horrific accounts of ex-Moonies who describe in detail how they were dispatched in groups from all over the United Kingdom, with everything from pot plants to toys, prints and other items which they were made to sell door-to-door in high streets and in pubs and clubs to raise money for that body. Worse still, they were told to refrain from telling potential customers the truth of the offer of sale and, instead, were encouraged to lie to be successful sellers.
It really is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government cannot act because of the law in its present form. Evidence exists of hundreds of cases of the sort that I have described. Other opportunities exist in the laws related to tax evasion. Some of those companies are undoubtedly operating in part on the black side of the economy. Laws related to health and safety in premises, bank accounts and company law should be checked if proof is needed of their activities. I am positive that such endeavours would be fruitful.
If any proof of such endeavours as I have mentioned were needed, I would point to the fact that I have informed the Registrar of Companies at Companies House that the company, Unified Family Enterprises Ltd.—one of the companies that I previously named—is in breach of the Companies Act 1985. I discovered that at the time of my research it had only filed accounts of its activities up to 31 March 1986.
In my determination to rid the Mansfield and north Nottinghamshire area of the Moonies' business operations, I have today contacted the Inland Revenue in my area to ask it to investigate Crescent Printing Services' financial and business ventures to establish whether it is fulfilling legal tax requirements.
In addition, I have asked Mansfield district council—the local authority concerned—to conduct inspections under the Factories Acts to determine whether health, safety and employment practices are being properly fulfilled. Local police have been urged to acquire the names of all persons associated with that firm.
I have also advised all local businesses and organisations, private and public, voluntary and statutory, of the background to Crescent Printing Services and its connection in the wider world outside the Mansfield and the north Nottinghamshire area.
I say to the Minister that if either I or a local reporter with the Free Press Recorder in Mansfield can discover such information, his vast army of helpers in Whitehall must be able to find out much more and act on the matter. Will the Minister take the matter seriously? Excuses that the law is difficult do not hold water in this place, especially as the Government have a reputation of changing, scrapping or introducing new law at a pace that will be recorded in the annals of history.
I would be willing to supply the Minister with any of the documentation about which I have spoken to help him in his endeavours. I would be grateful if he could ask his noble Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for such matters, to receive a delegation on this matter. I would be grateful, too, if he would commend the public duty fulfilled by both the Free Press Recorder in Mansfield and the investigatory work of its chief reporter, Mr. Steven Carr. They have tirelessly sought to uncover the evidence that I have presented in the interests not only of the people whom I serve, but others elsewhere.
I urge the Government to stop funding the INFORM organisation until such time as the matters I have raised have been answered fully and to the satisfaction of the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The story of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is an interesting one. I appreciate his concern and the concern of his local community in north Nottinghamshire. In view of the talents of the chief reporter of the Free Press Recorder, it is likely that he will soon be lost to north Nottinghamshire and that he will find himself a bolthole in Fleet street. I fear that he may well be recruited by one of those newspapers which were the subject of some comment during the last debate, to which the hon. Member for Mansfield and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) listened.
I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who in another place is ministerially responsible for these issues, the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Mansfield. I shall ask him to look into those issues.
Before I consider the specific issue of INFORM and the body that the hon. Gentleman and I think of as the Moonies, it would be helpful to comment on the activities of religious cults in general.
Cults are not a new phenomena, but in the 1960s and 1970s there was a growth in their number. Strictly speaking, many are heresies within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but some are influenced by mysticism, especially eastern mysticism. Many others are tinged with money-making influences, which seem to be a driving force behind their operations. Sometimes the definition is extended to include Christian fundamentalist sects, although that is debatable.
A characteristic of the groups is the elevation of a charismatic leader into a divine or semi divine status. To many of us their claims are ludicrous—it would be ludicrous to attach that status to any cult leader—but their appeal to the young, the impressionable and the inadequate, with a promise to build a better world or to develop character or improve the opportunities for adherents to succeed in a competitive world, can be damaging. As a result, wealth has often accrued to those leaders at the expense of their ultimately misguided followers, leaving then indebted and disillusioned.
By and large, the people who join cults, such as the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, the Hare Krishna or similar groups, come from surprisingly well-educated, professional or semi-professional backgrounds, with good prospects for their future careers. They are not children but young adults, and only a small percentage tend to remain linked to such cults in the long term. I am not suggesting that involvement with cults does not sometimes have tragic consequences. It is rarely those involved in the cults who come to us. Often it is the parents who seek help from us or organisations such as INFORM and others.
There is no doubting the distress and the alienation that parents feel. In the worst cases, parents experience not only a rejection of their standards and expectations, but also see a loved one dominated by a force which they cannot understand and which they believe is ultimately

self-destructive. It must make it even worse to know that, on many occasions, the drive has precious little to do with mysticism and everything to do with making money and exploitation. It is understandable that those whose children are involved should, from time to time, ask the Government to intervene, and that is what the hon. Member for Mansfield has done this evening.
The problem, rather like the problem encountered in the privacy debate, which was heard by most hon. Members now present, is one of balance. We enter that dangerous and sometimes difficult territory where order must be balanced against liberty and where the cure must not be more harmful than the evil it seeks to remedy. In this country, we have a long tradition of religious toleration. In recent weeks, that tradition has been stressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, myself and right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches as the Moslem community has been in some tumult and turmoil about the publication of "The Satanic Verses".
Freedom of expression and freedom of religion is a difficult area through which to tread. Those freedoms, including the freedom to change religion or belief and the freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice or otherwise, are guaranteed by the European convention on human rights, and that sometimes makes intervention difficult.
The Government can and should keep a close eye on cults. I urge the public of Mansfield and the surrounding towns and villages who have any evidence of any organisation or its members' involvement in breaking the law to inform the police immediately. The Nottingham constabulary would be pleased to hear from any member of the general public, or reader of the Free Press Recorder—

Mr. Sheerman: Many hon. Members hear complaints from members of the general public, who are rightly angry, as the host Christian community, when people such as the Moonies sell literature purporting to emanate from a Christian denomination or group, thereby wholly misleading people. Only when strongly challenged do such groups reveal their identity.
Members of the public then complain to the police, but they do not get very far. Could the Home Office give the police some general guidance for action? I have the feeling that most police forces do not know what to do when such instances are reported to them.

Mr. Patten: Any police constable or officer, when presented with prima facie evidence of a breach of the law, would consider taking it to the prosecuting authorities. Any police officer who thought there had been a breach of the criminal code of this country would act swiftly. However, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind. We shall review the need to give the police further guidance on this issue in our regular talks with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The activities and views of organisations are often deeply repugnant to sensible people, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has just said. That applies to a wider range of groups than those normally regarded as cults. It would be taking a big step if the Government selectively decided to intervene against individual groups without clear evidence of mass breaking of the criminal law—

Mr. Meale: Would it also be possible to give guidance about the business activities of people involved in religious


cults, such as the Moonies? There is disturbing evidence that many of the laws for the protection of ordinary citizens are being broken, yet little guidance for the protection of the public is being given.

Mr. Patten: During the last debate, the hon. Member for Huddersfield evinced some disappointment that no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry was present. I shall draw these matters to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman has said.
There are real difficulties in grappling with the problems which are created by organisations which operate under the protection which is afforded to religious bodies. That is well illustrated by the reception which was given to the proposals for a system of voluntary guidelines adopted by the European Parliament. These were criticised not only by new religious groups, but also by the established Churches, which considered them seriously to limit religious freedom and likely to affect the established Churches, too.
The Government believe that the public exposure of the true nature and activities of cults will help people to reflect more carefully before becoming involved. It is for that reason that the Government are currently providing some pump-priming funds for Information Network Focus on New Religions, or INFORM, to which the hon. Member for Mansfield referred. We have said that we will provide funding for no more than three years. For the 18 months to the end of March 1989, we have provided £70,000 and, subject to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary being satisfied that INFORM is achieving its objectives, we will provide up to £50,000 more over the next 18 months.
INFORM promotes study and research into cults and makes available high quality and objective information about the activities of cults in this country. It operates through a network of experts, mainly academics and churchmen, who keep in touch with the changing circumstances of cults. The information which INFORM produces is available to parents, teachers and others involved with the pastoral care of young people in particular, so they can be alert to the practices and activities of these groups.
Through the network, those who are seeking help and guidance can be referred to qualified counsellors. An informal network already exists, but more formal arrangements are being developed by the board of mission and unity of the General Synod of the Church of England at the request of the British Council of Churches and with the support of leaders of other Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. So it is being tackled at a high level by Churches in this country, who are operating in close co-operation with INFORM, a body which became operational only on 1 January 1988.
In the first 15 months of its work INFORM has established something of a reputation for giving objective information about the groups which operate. It has received many thousands of requests for information and, knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in these issues, I took the trouble to inform myself about the number of cases it has dealt with: 129 substantive cases involving inquiry. This is a very time-consuming business, as the hon. Gentleman can doubtless imagine, and many days can be spent on each case. The majority of requests, it will

not surprise the House to know, have come from parents, relatives or close friends of the generally young people involved with this cult.
The Church of Scientology has attracted the most references thus far to INFORM, but interest certainly also centres on the Unification Church—there have been a good number of cases—and on others such as the Children of God, Transcendental Meditation, and a wide range of other groups which I know are of interest to many on both sides of the House.
Some members of anti-cultist groups believe that those responsible for setting up INFORM are too closely involved with the cults and their objectives. A particular target of attention is Dr. Eileen Barker, to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. She chairs INFORM's board of governors. She is a sociology lecturer in the London School of Economics, and has specialised in the study of cults, especially the Unification Church, the Moonies. I wonder if the moon is indeed shining out there as we speak now.
Dr. Barker's researches have necessarily brought her into contact with the Moonies, just as this debate has brought me into contact with the hon. Member for Mansfield this evening. I can imagine no one more agreeable to spend the early hours of Tuesday morning with, apart from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), for fear that the Whips Office is left out of the all-round approbation of those of us in the Chamber.
Dr. Barker has attended conferences organised by these organisations to present papers and to further her research. She is well aware of the dangers which such contacts could have for the researcher, but she firmly believes, in her own words, which I have secured for greater accuracy, that it would
be nothing short of professional irresponsibility for the sociologist not to observe and understand
at first hand the perceptions of the Unification Church.
Considering the importance for the Unification Church of its conference, any systematic observation of the movement, which did not include attendance at Unification conferences, would, to say the least, be methodologically deficient.
I think she is right, and her methods were agreed by the Economic and Social Research Council, which funded her research.

Mr. Meale: I fully understand the methodology of someone who, at the highest level of a Government-funded organisation, attempts to act as a bridge and information unit between them, but the fact of the matter is that most of the organisations in the United Kingdom which concern themselves with religious cults and attempting to help people who have been damaged because of them distrust this organisation, and indeed, greatly distrust the director, Dr. Barker, whom we have just discussed. There is a wealth of evidence which clearly shows that Dr. Barker is very sympathetic to the Unification Church. Would it not be sensible for the Minister to accept that and ask the Home Office to examine it before the review is completed?

Mr. Patten: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he chose his words with great care because he referred to someone outside this House and we are talking in a privileged way in the House tonight. If the hon. Member for Mansfield has clear evidence of improper behaviour by anyone connected with INFORM, it is extremely important that he brings that


evidence to the attention of my noble Friend Lord Ferrers who is the Minister responsible for this policy in the Home Office. If the hon. Gentleman has a dossier or papers about Dr. Barker, or anyone else, which he wants to lay before the Home Office, he knows that he need only approach me and I will ensure that my noble Friend examines the papers closely.
We should be cautious before we condemn anyone without the evidence being displayed before the House. The benefit of keeping in contact with the Unification Church is that INFORM can maintain contact with cults and provide a link between parents and children when all other means of contact have broken down. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss individual cases in the House, but there is evidence that, through contact with the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology, Dr. Barker has been able to provide a link to the benefit of parents and their children which would not otherwise have been possible.
If there was any doubt about INFORM, the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Church Federal Council would not have welcomed the establishment of INFORM. They were represented on the working group which set up the organisation and are now represented on the board of governors together with representatives from the British Association of Counselling and the British Sociological Association's sociology of religions study group. The most reverend primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a patron together with Bishop John Crowley from the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Westminster. The General Synod of the Church of England is also providing funds. Those are distinguished people from Churches representing a variety of faiths.
I welcome the involvement of the Churches. They have an important role to play in guiding and teaching. I have no doubt that the cults will flourish only where there is a spiritual and moral vacuum left unfilled. I sometimes think that people turn to some of the nutty cults when no message is reaching them and they then indulge in things which they would not otherwise do. The Churches must assess their teachings so that they support and encourage those people who are most vulnerable in our society, the most impressionable and most easily led. In that way, they should be able to help expose the falseness of the claims of the cults.
For the reasons that I have explained, the Government cannot become involved in anti-cultist activity or make subjective judgments about groups on the basis of anecdote and prejudice. I urge the hon. Member for Mansfield to produce the evidence to put before the Home Office if he feels that anything is wrong with any organisation connected with cults.
The Home Office regards INFORM as a significant step towards healing the harmful side effects of the activities of cults. We hope that all those concerned in north Nottinghamshire and elsewhere with the effects of cults on family life will co-operate with INFORM and will regard it not as an obstacle, but as a tool in the work of exposing the sometimes undoubtedly unsavoury and sometimes undoubtedly unacceptable—and the hon. Member for Mansfield would say sometimes illegal—activities of the cult movement. We shall watch developments carefully and keep those cults under careful scrutiny. But if there is evidence of any illegal activity, we shall ensure that it is referred to the police. I urge the hon. Member for Mansfield to urge his constituents in turn to follow the same course.

Orders of the Day — Roads (Hampshire)

Mr. Andrew Hunter: This is not only a god-forsaken hour but one that seems to have been forsaken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, whose presence at this debate I expected. I deeply regret his absence. Charitably, I acknowledge that the duties of a Minister are onerous, and charitably I acknowledge that therefore his absence is understandable. However, when I spoke to him between 10 and 11 o'clock there was no indication that he might be absent from this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Traffic jams."' Yes, such things happen.
Despite all that, I greatly welcome this opportunity to introduce a short debate—or, more accurately, a short dialogue—on the theme of capital allocation and spending on roads in Hampshire. Were my hon. Friend the Minister present, he would have noted that my interest in that theme has become a little more marked. I do not apologise for raising the subject again. Far from it—I am glad of the opportunity, for such opportunities do not often come the way of Back Benchers and are not to be overlooked.
Despite the lateness of the hour, and despite the fact that I have raised the subject with my hon. Friend on other occasions, I am unrepentant at doing so again because it is one of supreme importance. My broad theme is addressed to the circumstances in which the county of Hampshire finds itself, but I suspect that they are not wildly different from those found in other counties in the south of England.
One may consider first the background to the predicament in which Hampshire finds itself. It is obvious that infrastructure investment—not least in roads—must be seen and assessed as part of the overall strategy of any Government's economic policies. The Government, whom I support so strongly, have an overall policy strategy that seeks to give dominance to market forces. The Government believed that economic recovery and regeneration would come through giving market forces—I say good evening to my hon. Friend the Minister—the fullest expedient rein.
The Government believe also that economic recovery and regeneration has been brought about in that way, and I accept that proposition. The Government have always argued also that market forces would generate economic activity, which would be a catalyst for national economic recovery. Again, that argument is one that I accept. It follows that the Government have always acknowledged that there would be regional differences in the rate of economic regeneration. They argued that the south of England, including Hampshire—which has for a variety of reasons avoided in general the worst of recession and has a higher level of economic activity than other parts of the country—would act as a catalyst for economic regeneration in other parts of the country. The Government argue that, that is happening, which I also accept.
The Government further argue that despite recession and a lower level of economic activity nationally in their earlier years of office than was desirable, an acceptable level of infrastructure investment, especially in roads, has been maintained. In the 1983 general election campaign, for example, the Government proclaimed a 100 per cent. cash terms increase in local authority capital expenditure on roads compared with 1979. The election campaign

guide proclaimed a real terms 12 per cent. increase in capital spending on motorways and trunk roads since 1979, and a total real terms increase in roads spending of 17 per cent.
The 1987 campaign guide proclaimed a 30 per cent. real terms increase in capital expenditure on motorways and trunk roads since 1979, and a 30 per cent. increase in Government grant for local authority capital spending on roads. As recently as the last Autumn Statement, the Chancellor declared that infrastructure investment would increase yet further because of continuing economic recovery. He spoke of an extra £220 million being spent on roads in 1989–90 and an extra £250 million in the following year, and proclaimed that £3 billion would be spent on roads within the next three years.
If Hampshire could look to a fair share of that increased investment, there would be no need for tonight's debate. Hampshire's experience is diametrically opposed to the broad national figures of which the Government boast. By any criterion Hampshire has been and is a county of growth, whether we measure that growth in terms of population, housebuilding, industrial and commercial development, job creation or the creation of wealth. Arguably it has done more than its fair share—if we can talk in those terms—of generating economic activity from which the rest of the country can benefit. All that has inevitably resulted in increased traffic. It might be reasonable to assume that there has been a corresponding and fully justified increase in the county's infrastructure investment, not least in roads, but the reverse is the case.
My hon. Friend the Minister may recall his answers to my written questions on 2 March—column 292 of Hansard—and 3 March—columns 341 to 343. Hampshire county council has not been over-greedy or over-ambitious in its bids for allocations for capital expenditure on roads. In most years since 1979, at today's prices, it has bid for between £18 million and £20 million. In 10 years it has once exceeded £21 million—again at today's prices—and it has twice bid less than £18 million. There has been a broad consistency in its applications.
On the other hand—this is the galling reality—the county is about to enter its sixth successive year of real terms decrease in capital allocation. Allocation for spending on Hampshire's roads reached its height in 1984–85. Allocation in that year, in todays' prices, was £19,200,000. It dropped by 6·4 per cent. in 1985–86, by a further 2·6 per cent. in 1986–87 and by no less than a further 17·1 per cent. in 1987–88. In 1988–89 it fell by a further staggering 24 per cent., and is due to drop by another 6 per cent. in the financial year that is about to start. A capital allocation of more than £19 million at today's prices in 1984–85 will become a capital allocation of £10 million next year. The county has to accept that, despite the economic growth that it has witnessed and the economic activity that it has generated, for six years there has been a continuing decrease in capital expenditure on the county's roads because of central Government restraint.
Meanwhile Hampshire's roads have been used more and more, well above the increase in the national average for traffic, because Hampshire is a success story. The wealth and economic activity of the county is increasing and the traffic is increasing. The national traffic levels have increased by about 25 per cent. on average in the past six years. The figures for Hampshire vary in different parts of the county, but where development and expansion have


been greatest the rate of increase in the volume of traffic has been phenomenal. The M3 passes through my constituency at Basingstoke where there has been an increase of about 95 per cent. in the past six years.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced increased investment in roads nationally of £220 million next year and £225 million the following year, reaching £3 billion over three years. Hampshire will not benefit from that next year. Experience leads the county to be extremely cynical about the following years.
I shall now make some local observations. All hon. Members representing Hampshire constituencies can recite their own catalogue of concern and disquiet about roads in their constituencies. I shall select just two. The A33 from Reading to Basingstoke is a nightmare, and increasingly a death trap. The road links two of the most industrially and commercially active towns in the country. The volume of traffic multiplies each year. The present road is lamentably and dangerously inadequate. Hampshire county council rightly seeks to construct a new dual-carriageway A33. Restraints on spending mean that nothing can be done for several years. There are between four and six fatalities per year on that road and the fatality rate is increasing. It is possible that between 30 and 50 people will die on that road before Hampshire county council can find the capital to build the new dual carriageway. That is simply monstrous.
Another example is the A30, which crosses the Basingstoke ring road or the A339, at what is known as the Black Dam roundabout, east of Basingstoke. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall our past exchanges on that subject. The Department of Transport is the highway authority for that part of Basingstoke's road network. Whatever may emerge from district and county or district or county initiatives, the present situation should never have arisen. There can be few clearer instances of under-investment in the roads of Hampshire than what now happens at what is effectively exit 6 of the M3. The danger factor increases monthly with the volume of traffic. Repairs currently being carried out on the M3 only aggravate an already intolerable situation. Basingstoke district council has an exemplary record of sensible and sustainable growth. Basingstoke has been a magnificent success story. Hampshire county council has much to boast about. In sharp contrast the refusal of the Department of Transport to do anything other than carry out cosmetic improvements speaks for itself.
I somewhat mischievously invite my hon. Friend to find time in his busy schedule one day to get into a car with me, drive down the M4 from London, take exit 11 at Reading down to Basingstoke and travel down the A33, roughly between a quarter to eight and a quarter past eight in the morning. If he accepts that invitation I will arrange for him to be shown a video of what was happening at Black Dam roundabout while we were doing that journey so that he will have personal experience of the traffic in one small part of the county of Hampshire.
Perhaps that is enough of purely Basingstoke concerns. The theme of the debate is further afield than just Basingstoke.
Recently I have been in correspondence with the county surveyor, Mr. A W Jacomb. I want to put firmly on the record my appreciation of his co-operation and kindness,

and the high regard in which he is held by Hampshire Members of Parliament. The county surveyor has drawn to my attention another bone of contention—the transport supplementary grant criteria. The simple truth is that Hampshire is far from happy with its experience, perception and understanding of the working of the transport supplementary grant. The county argues that the grant works counter to its interests in a number of ways.
First, the county argues that the implementation of the review of the national primary route network has had disadvantageous TSG implications for Hampshire. In the circumstances created by the review of the national primary route network two years ago, the county council formulated a strategy based on the uncompleted spinal system of motorways in the county, a supporting trunk road system and a relatively small number of county roads. The county sought by that strategy to direct long distance traffic on to an appropriate road network. The county specifically sought to avoid the environmentally sensitive parts of the county road system.
The result has been that the county is receiving an unacceptably low allocation for county primary routes. It regards that state of affairs as intolerable. The county believes that the TSG criteria are biased against such a responsible overall county strategy, incorporating not just motorways and trunk roads but that small number of county roads.
Secondly, the county is deeply cynical about the implementation of the principle of more than local importance when seeking capital allocation for county roads. That principle seems in practice to work disadvantageously for Hampshire. Much of the coastline of Hampshire is urbanised. The linking road system forms part of the county primary network. The traffic flow on the road system of the urbanised coast route often far exceeds the flow of traffic on many national primary routes. The county's argument is that those routes should be given particular consideration as links to the national primary network, but that argument has been disregarded by the Department of Transport. The county's experience is that bids for capital allocation for such roads do not obtain TSG support.
Thirdly, the county believes that the TSG criteria insufficiently take into account development within the county, and especially the south Hampshire and the north-east Hampshire structure plans. The Department of the Environment tells the county council that it must foster economic growth, that it must revitalise older urban areas, that it must accommodate new development, that it must conserve the countryside. The county planners seek to do this, but without significant investment by the highway authority, it is impossible—and Government restraints do not permit this expenditure.
I have presented my argument. Because of the growth and development that Hampshire has witnessed, and the consequent increase in the volume of traffic, the county council needs a greater capital allocation for expenditure on roads and a greater transport supplementary grant. The county looks to the Government, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, for a positive response.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on taking another opportunity to raise the subject of roads in Hampshire. As he half indicated, he spends his time as a master of fox hounds with me as the fox. That is perfectly reasonable, of course, since as junior Minister at the Department of Transport I have to do all that I can to improve highways and to help highway users in England to protect the environment. In that respect, there are few areas more important than Hampshire. I must also do all that I can to reduce casualties—about which we have had various debates and questions this parliamentary day—and to allow for economic growth and cope with its consequences.
My hon. Friend acknowledged that infrastructure improvements—the things that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I would refer to as roads, bridges and railway lines—have enabled his part of Hampshire to grow at a rate substantially greater than that of the country as a whole, and to enjoy even the times of recession in Britain.
Indeed, Basingstoke and the areas around it have been showing the way towards a modern Britain. Large numbers of people, large numbers of vehicles, both domestic and commercial, and more movement have led to pressure on the roads in Hampshire and in other parts of the country. I shall pass over the dilemma of whether we should put extra money into the provision of more even economic growth across the country, or whether it is necessary to cope more adequately with those areas where pressure on the roads is greatest. Some areas would love to have the problems that my hon. Friend has described.
My hon. Friend and the House will understand if I interleave my remarks about Hampshire with comments about the country as a whole. It is well known to the county surveyor of Hampshire—and, I hope, to county councillors—that capital receipts must be taken into account when deciding how much the 107 highway authorities in England should have for expenditure on roads. I am delighted to be informed that in the last financial year Hampshire county council's spending power from receipts exceeded that of any other county council. I am sure that that is a reflection of good husbandry on the part of the county council, but I am not certain that those who provide information to councillors in Hampshire necessarily put that point at the top of their list. The ability to use capital receipts, or a portion of them, is one of those arcane mysteries that one comes across occasionally when people are making their points in public.
Some elements of the local authority capital control system are changing. The situation in the future may not be so good as I claim—I do not have perfect foresight—but in general the previous system had worse implications for counties than for areas governed by certain other types of authority. Government have been unable to make a total distinction between local authorities with substantial capital receipts, which tend to be the housing authorities, and those such as the highway authorities and the counties which have expensive capital requirements for roads.
My hon. Friend will recognise that for 1989–90 the capital allocations for roads, as for all other services, have been set lower than provision to take account of total local authority receipts across all services, including council housing sales. The spending power of local authorities from capital receipts in 1989–90—which my hon. Friend

refers to as "next year" and which I refer to as "next month", which makes it sound closer—is expected to amount to more than £4·6 billion, an increase of about 30 per cent. All local authorities, including the shire counties, will have more than they have for the current year. We are talking about a spending power for each local authority in the forthcoming month, or the year that starts next month, which will be higher than that for the current year. I am not sure that that information was totally clear from my hon. Friend's speech, but it was implied in his comments.
In setting capital allocations, the law does not allow account to be taken of the distribution of capital receipts between authorities. Most local authorities responsible for highways have below average ratios of receipts to total capital expenditure programmes and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the system has had a particularly inhibiting effect on roads expenditure. That has influenced authorities to underspend their provision. It is for each authority to decide on which services its capital receipts are to be used. No highway authority is without capital receipts to top up its roads allocations.
As my hon. Friend knows—the House will want to welcome this—proposals for a new system for regulating local government capital finance were published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in July 1988. Last month the Local Government and Housing Bill was laid before the House. Part IV of that Bill contains proposals arising from last year's consultation and provides for a fairer system to be introduced for 1990–91. There are two key features. First, central Government control will be reduced from control over the extent of capital spending to control on the use of borrowing and Exchequer grants for capital purposes. Account will be taken of each authority's access to capital receipts. That last point should be good news for most highway authorities and for Hampshire, although it will be relatively less good news for Hampshire than for other authorities because of its existing position in terms of capital receipts. Secondly, the funding of local roads and transport capital programmes will be put on a clearer, more logical basis. Local authorities will retain full responsibility for determining their road and transport programmes.
Transport supplementary grant provides central Government support for local authority capital expenditure on roads of more than local importance. The criteria and guidance for TSG go out for consultation to local authorities and I am sure that Hampshire, like other local authorities, will put its view forward when that process takes place again in the current year. However, the responses from the local authorities, together with the associations, will have to be taken into account, along with the representations that I am sure will be made by Hampshire directly.
Grant is paid on the local authority's estimates of future expenditure at a flat rate of 50 per cent. Each local highway authority puts forward an annual transport policy and programme submission setting out its expenditure proposals for the next financial year. The 1989–90 TPPs include a proposal for expenditure of £690 million on schemes that the submitting authorities consider appropriate for TSG support. The Secretary of State is required to determine how much of each authority's proposed expenditure he will accept for grant. In doing so, the main factors to be taken into account are whether expenditure is on a road of more than local


importance, the extent to which it would provide value for money and benefit traffic, its benefit to the community, industry and commerce, road safety and the environment.
Distribution of TSG is not based on a pre-determined formula. If it were, no local authority would receive extra when it has extra need and it could almost be included in rate support grant. Authorities could spend from current funds rather than relying on TSG to provide significant extra help. When a scheme is named for TSG, it carries with it a capital allocation to enable the local authority to borrow the rest of the money. In effect, having a scheme accepted for 50 per cent. funding by TSG allows the local authority to carry out work and solves the financial problems in getting a road scheme agreed.
Roads of more than local importance include not only roads on the primary network but bypasses, roads relieving communities of the effects of through traffic and links with motorways. The 1989–90 total for TSG is £204 million—an increase of nearly 7 per cent. on the current year. If TSG increases more than that capital allocation provision, the amount of capital allocation remaining available to highway authorities decreases. I do not remember during last year's consultations a local authority or an association of local authorities saying that it would prefer the TSG element of the capital allocation to be reduced.
Not all requests for grant can be met. There is competition for grant among authorities' programmes. That helps to ensure that grant support is concentrated on schemes which offer the greatest benefit. Some 61 new schemes have been accepted for TSG in 1989–90, 17 of which will directly assist inner-city areas. I make that point because although I am about to deal with Hampshire—we must recognise that in the past some areas have not received the attention that they should have. If it is possible to help to regenerate inner-city areas, some of the enormous pressure for continued economic growth in areas such as Basingstoke and Hampshire will be relieved.
If some of the figures that I am about to give do not appear reconcilable with those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, it is probably because I am not putting the case across in the clearest way. It might be sensible for Hampshire's county surveyor to take up detailed points with the regional office of the Department of Transport. I suspect that they will be able to agree facts, even though my hon. Friend and I may be putting some of the totals differently.
Hampshire's capital allocation for roads for1989–90 is nearly £11 million, which is a 4 per cent. increase on last year. Nationally, the average is a 2 per cent. decrease. I make that point gently, not because it is a significant cash increase for Hampshire but to compare it with the cut for the rest of the country. Hampshire's TSG for 1989–90 will be more than £4·8 million, which is a 17 per cent. increase. The national average is an increase of 7 per cent. Instead of a 7 per cent. increase, Hampshire is receiving an increase of 17 per cent., and instead of a cut of 2 per cent in capital allocation, which includes TSG, it is receiving an increase of 4 per cent.

Mr. Hunter: On capital allocation, it will be necessary for the county council and my hon. Friends' officials to consult further, but my clear understanding of his answer to my written question about a week ago, to which I

referred in my speech, is directly opposed to the answer that he has just given. The matter therefore needs to be pursued in far greater detail.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that that is right. The difference may be between real terms and cash terms.
The change in transport supplementary grant—the 17 per cent. increase—has occurred despite an adjustment because of underspending against agreed TSG-supported programmes in previous years. An adjustment for underspending is not a penalty or a criticism. No highway authority, whether it be the Department of Transport nationally, which cares for 4 per cent. of roads, or the local highway authorities, which care for 96 per cent., can programme precisely what spending will take place in any one year. It depends on statutory procedures, the weather and a multitude of other factors.
The transport supplementary grant total for Hampshire includes continued support for six major schemes, including the Portswood to Swaythling bypass costing more than £10 million. I had better give the next figure quietly because other hon. Members may start to say, "What about us?" The Blackwater valley route is now estimated to cost more than £43 million. I am aware that the Blackwater valley route is a road shared with Surrey and is geographically on the boundary of Hampshire, rather than providing help for the centre of Hampshire which for the purposes of todays debate I regard as my hon. Friend's constituency. To be able to continue work on a £43 million scheme, or even a £10 million scheme, involves quite a lot of road and quite a lot of money.
Support has been included for one new major scheme—stage two of the Totton western bypass. Hampshire's capital allocation for 1989–90 is the sixth highest of all shire counties and the 10th highest of all 108 highway authorities. I seem to have miscounted previously. If I continue my speech much longer, the total may reach 110. The more serious point is that Hampshire's capital allocation is the 10th highest of all local highway authorities. Hampshire is a major highway authority and a major county.

Mr. Hunter: It is the largest county.

Mr. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend says, it is the largest county even without the Isle of Wight. The high estimated capital expenditure on roads in the future, especially on the Blackwater valley route, is likely to keep Hampshire near the top of the league.
Those points do not deal with my hon. Friend's underlying problem—what is to happen to the A33, the Reading-Basingstoke road. He rightly points to the fact that increased traffic is bringing increased danger. He has also made the point that he is not concerned only about county roads. He referred, too, to the Black Dam roundabout and asked whether the Department's grant criteria had a bias against Hampshire.
I shall deal with the third point first because it is the easiest. There is no bias against Hampshire in the transport supplementary grant criteria. If there were, it would not be the year for any county surveyor in Hampshire to make the point because a 17 per cent. increase in transport supplementary grant when the rest of the country has 7 per cent. suggests that any bias is working in favour of Hampshire rather than against it. For any good politician, which the county surveyor may be, or any good honorary county surveyor, which my hon.


Friend the politician may be, it is better to start striking early for future provision, as Hampshire will be able to use money to great advantage.
My hon. Friend came to the Department and put me right on a number of issues. I pay tribute to his past attention to the road needs of Hampshire as well as to the other needs of his constituency. I understood that the work on the A33 Reading-Basingstoke road was not expected to start before 1992. I am not sure to what extent the county has programmed in relation to the expected availability of funds and to what extent in relation to the planning, design and statutory processes that it would have to go through before it could expect to start the work. For the purposes of this debate, it is perhaps not particularly important that I should know. What matters is that the county should have the expectation of being able to obtain the funds reasonably close to the time at which it needs them. One of the advantages of our present transport policies and programme system, and of the transport supplementary grant system, is that most authorities can gain access to money when they are nearly ready to start a road. In general, we try to help highway authorities with roads when they plan to start to spend significant sums in the subsequent financial year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke referred to the Black Dam roundabout. The Department would like to cope with some of the problems as soon as possible. On another occasion my hon. Friend pointed to the doubling of the local work force that is forecast over the coming two or three years. It is important that the district and county councils should keep the Department's regional office informed of developments because significant increases in occupied offices in the area will contribute more significantly to congestion than it would in other areas, where there is no direct link between the use of offices and road access. We hope to make small-scale improvements in the roundabout, which we hope will ease traffic congestion in future. We shall also be looking for a more long-term scheme, to be added to the national programme when that can be justified. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and I agree on what needs to be done, but we shall have to try to sort out the timing of a long-term scheme to relieve congestion.
My hon. Friend engagingly invited me to go for a long drive with him. I am not sure whether to accept. I do not want to commit myself until I know the standard of his driving. One of my troubles is that by nature, and because of my responsibilities, I do not exceed the speed limit, so I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his tolerance of my arriving slightly late for the debate. Even at this time of the morning, I try to drive well within the speed limit. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to use my eyes as I drive through Hampshire, and my ears when I am within range of my hon. Friend. I shall also try to continue to help his part of Hampshire to cope better with traffic needs.
Without making too many partisan points, I should point out that it is important to have a road network which complements the country's public transport and rail network. We expect the railways to continue to contribute to the country's economic future, although we understand that it is no longer axiomatic—as it was for the first two years during which I was responsible for roads—that a new rail proposal will be welcomed with open arms. Privately, I think that the reason why Jonathon Porritt is to retire as director of Friends of the Earth is that whereas

some people who regarded themselves as Friends of the Earth said during my first two years, "Never build a road—always build a railway," when a railway was proposed this time it was not the Friends of the Earth who leapt into public print to say "Don't worry about a railway—it's good for you." I am not sure that the railways in question were welcomed with open arms in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) any more than they were in my constituency of Eltham.
It is right to have roads which meet the needs of people who now have access to cars. It is not complacent to say that we shall never be able to cope with all the potential demand for people driving into inner and central London as car commuters but that it should be possible to cope with congestion in most other parts of the country most of the time. More people now have cars than ever before. During the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister since 1979, the proportion of adult women with driving licences has increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., and it will go on increasing to 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. Since 1979, the proportion of retired people with driving licences has increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., and it will go on increasing, as the age curve moves forward, to 50 per cent., 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.
I see no reason why women, pensioners and people who may have been categorised as ethnic minorities should not be able to use the roads in the same way that white middle-class men have been able to do for generations. Part of the democracy of transport is to say that, whatever one's background, sex or age, anyone who can drive reasonably safely can share the roads, although if all the car drivers get their cars out of the garage at the same time and try to drive in the same area they may have a greater opportunity to listen to local radio for a longer time than they otherwise might.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister cannot possibly be suggesting that all car drivers would get into their cars at the same time. He must acknowledge that, even though more women are acquiring driving licences and may be becoming car owners, for most of their lives the majority of women are still more dependent on public transport. Although he has again acknowledged that there are limits to car use in the city, when we are talking about a county as close to London as Hampshire it is important to recognise that we cannot keep building roads in counties such as Hampshire and allow all the increased volume of traffic to go into London.
There is a difference between the hon. Gentleman's and my party's policies on roads in London. As he knows, Opposition Members believe that there is no reason to justify major new road schemes in London. That point applies to other parts of the country, too, particularly the south-east and the traffic generated in the capital where restraint is undoubtedly necessary and will be more necessary in future.

Mr. Bottomley: As the county elections approach, it will be interesting to see the number of county council wards in Hampshire and other places in the south-east in which the Labour party puts up candidates.

Ms. Ruddock: Everywhere.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady says, "Everywhere." We shall see, but I believe that there is an informal alliance between the Labour party and the Social and Liberal Democrats or the SDP in parts of Hampshire.

Mr. Hunter: And in Basingstoke.

Mr. Bottomley: And in Basingstoke, too. The hon. Lady has contributed well to the debate. We must remember that, as the county council season approaches, people will put themselves forward to join the highway authority, which is what the county council will be. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke will tell the House whether the Labour party intends to stand down for the remaining parts of the alliance, or whether the alliance will stand down for the remaining parts of the Labour party.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: What about Durham?

Mr. Bottomley: That is rather a long way from the nominated subject for debate.

Ms. Ruddock: As the Minister tempts me into making party political points, he must acknowledge that, of taxes raised through road funds, the proportion spent on roads was close to 35 per cent. when Labour left office in 1979. I understand that it has now fallen to 25 per cent. The Minister cannot suggest that in general the Labour party has been less committed to investment in and expenditure on roads. None of our county council election candidates would have any difficulty in making the case that they have been committed and will continue to be committed to road matters. As the Minister knows full well, my point related to London.

Mr. Bottomley: If I can stop when I get to London rather than going further north on this occasion—

Ms. Ruddock: Why?

Mr. Bottomley: I would rest by saying that we spend on roads roughly what is raised by vehicle excise duty. The argument that we do not spend all that we raise on taxation on fuel on roads would be a fair point. Hypothecation—which is one of those polysyllabic words that means spending the money raised on things from which the money comes—was a principle that was dropped 51 years ago. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) can probably confirm that. I do not believe that it applies any more to alcohol duty than it does to petrol duty. If it is Labour party policy that all the money raised on the combined tax on fuel and on vehicle excise duty should be spent on roads, I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has approved that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Deptford could consider that matter with her right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hunter: More than 51 years ago, the window tax was never spent on windows.

Mr. Bottomley: I grant that point to my hon. Friend.
I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Deptford about London. If the Labour party is saying that it will never spend any money on roads in London, that is not the point. The hon. Lady has conceded that we should spend some money on some roads in London. The question is what sort of roads. I am grateful that, as a

constituency Member of Parliament, I managed to persuade the Labour Greenwich council and the GLC to put forward proposals for the Rochester way relief road.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the Minister that we are dealing with capital allocation for roads in Hampshire. Perhaps he will refer to the subject under debate.

Ms. Ruddock: We got carried away.

Mr. Bottomley: I apologise for being led down the garden path by the hon. Member for Deptford, who is continuing an invitation that she extended to me at Question Time today.
I shall return to the capital allocation for Hampshire. I hope that it will be possible for the Labour party to play a greater part in the local politics of Hampshire. It would reduce the chances of the Social and Liberal Democrats or the Social Democrats winning as many seats as they might otherwise win. I hope that the Labour party's reinvolvement in Hampshire will be echoed in Surrey, in the Isle of Wight and in the other counties where at one stage it slipped to about 2·4 per cent. of the popular vote. With the capital allocation in Hampshire, I believe that local politics would be enhanced by that greater participation. If it meant that the local Labour party started to vote at Labour party conferences on the sort of matters that concern people in Hampshire—such as roads, a sensible defence policy and other important issues—that would be good for politics in Britain.

Ms. Ruddock: What about railways in Kent?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke did not raise the question of railways in Kent. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to return to the points that my hon. Friend made.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an increase in road spending. As my hon. Friend said, most of that will go on national roads. I give a warning that if the people tendering for roads decide to put their prices up they will not get a steady programme in the future. The person who wrote the second editorial in the New Civil Engineer misinterpreted what the Department was saying, is saying and will say in the future. It would be much easier for us to release a fairly steady work load if the contractors put forward fairly steady prices. We shall not go back to the sort of budgeting of the last Labour Government who between 1975 and 1979 had to halve new national spending on new national roads in real terms. We are not that kind of Government. We are willing to take the hard decision, even if it means disappointing some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for a time. It matters that we should keep the national finances under control and spend more money on capital investment than on current subsidies. We expect to see a 40 per cent. increase in the money available for the national roads programme during the next two years of the public expenditure survey period, and we expect to have a more sensible system of local government capital spending so that counties such as Hampshire can spend the kind of money that they need.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Minister said that contractors should not expect to put in tenders at the same prices. That is interesting. From the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee a week


ago, it is clear that his Department is relying on a recession in this country so that tender prices will drop. That is the significance of the Minister's remarks and of the evidence given to the PAC.

Mr. Bottomley: It would not be proper for me to anticipate the conclusions that the PAC will reach in its report following the attendance of the permanent secretary. The point that I was seeking to make about the New Civil Engineer is that officials gave clear advice to Ministers and Ministers took the decision. I am in no sense trying to do the work of the PAC—that would not be proper—but it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that whoever supplied the information to the New Civil Engineer did not understand or did not listen when questions were answered about how the Department's budget would be spent. Ministers took a clear decision on whether the new capital programme or the capital reconstruction should carry the load. When second leaders in the New Civil Engineer—not an earth-shaking event, although I pay tribute to the magazine's general role—put on the accounting officer a responsibility taken by Ministers, and accuse Department officials of not understanding what they understood perfectly well and put to us in a way that we understood perfectly well, it is right to put the record straight. I wish that the rest of the press would occasionally report the words of Ministers when they praise the work of civil servants for giving clear, non-partisan advice rather than saying that the Civil Service has been politicised or is incompetent. I note that the Press Gallery is not full—not that one ought to notice even if it were.
My lion. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has rightly drawn attention to the fact that a highway authority, especially Hampshire, could spend more money to great advantage. We are moving towards a system whereby counties such as Hampshire will be able to do just that. My hon. Friend says that Hampshire has been badly done by. I have done what I can to refute that in a friendly way. Hampshire has had more capital receipts available than other highway authorities and has had a greater increase in transport supplementary grant, although I accept that the free capital allocation is not so great as it would otherwise have been.
There were some points of difference on detail and number and I will ensure that the regional office gets in contact with the county surveyor of Hampshire to see if there is an irreconcilable difference that my hon. Friend and I should sort out. If it turns out that I have given any incorrect figures, I shall say so as soon as I can.
The residents of Basingstoke are well served by my hon. Friend. I hope that it will be possible to move forward with the transport supplementary grant system in such a way that my hon. Friend and Hampshire will be satisfied with the criteria and with the outcome and that unnecessary congestion, casualties and inhibitions on economic growth will be removed by sensible improvements to national and county road networks.

Orders of the Day — Children (Special Educational Needs)

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is present to respond, but as I have already told the Minister and his Department, the services for children with special educational needs are provided by the health authorities. That is an important point to stress.
In 1987 there were about 134,000 children with special educational needs in our schools. About 109,000 of those children are in special schools and the other 20,000 plus are in ordinary schools either in ordinary classes or in special units. Therefore, not all the children with special educational needs are in special schools, but only about three quarters of them.
Under the Education Act 1981 these 134,000 children were assessed in respect of their special needs; a statement of their needs and how they were to be met was produced. I shall not go into the details of the children's problems—their disabilities are many and varied. These children are our fellow citizens. They have brothers and sisters and mums and dads and they are as entitled as the rest of us to flower physically and intellectually to their maximum potential. The Education Act 1981 was an advance, and I pay tribute to it. However, all legislation passed by the House with good intentions should be carefully monitored so that it delivers and does not merely build up people's hopes, only to dash them again.
I want to discuss physiotherapy services for pupils. Later, I shall touch on speech therapy, too. Unless many of the pupils with physical disabilities can obtain the services and resources of a physiotherapist, their legal right to education under British and international law will be lost.
The Wilson Stuart special school in Kingstanding is in my constituency. It is a typical special school for children with disabilities. It is attended by about 140 pupils aged from three to 16. It shares a site with two other special schools, one for pupils with hearing difficulties and the other for children with a sight handicap.
The physiotherapy input to the school is provided not by Birmingham education authority but by the west Birmingham health authority. Wilson Stuart school has always served my constituents, as it has those living in Erdington, Ladywood and Sutton Coldfield. It has been in my constituency only since the boundary changes of 1983. I seem to recollect—as I watch the Minister's smiling face—that we both represent west midlands constituencies and share former membership of the Birmingham education committee.
I have raised the subject of this school in the House before. Back in 1987 I complained to the then Secretary of State for Social Services—my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), whose constituents' children attend the school—about the lack of physiotherapy. I do not want to be partisan in this debate, but the right hon. Gentleman dismissed my complaints as nonsense and said that the services were adequate.
Some of the parents who complained about the lack of physiotherapy for their children in early 1987 ended up having their children re-classified as needing no physiotherapy—just supervision. That did not go down


too well. Late in 1987, the pattern of physiotherapy was adjusted to improve matters—that cannot be denied. On 27 October 1987 I asked whether Ministers were satisfied with the amount of physiotherapy for children in the special schools in Birmingham. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the then Minister, replied: "Yes". In answer to a supplementary question, she pointed out that the school
was affected by a shortage of … physiotherapists at the end of last year
—1986—
but is currently up to establishment".—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 158–159.]
She also said that there had been an increase in the west Birmingham health authority physiotherapy levels.
Later in 1987, the parents had to form the Wilson Stuart parents' action group. During 1988, they had several meetings with the staff of the west Birmingham health authority. I do not mean just the staff but the leadership of the health authority, Mr. Gerry Goghlan, and the general manager of community medicine, Dr. Mike Hilburn, who have given this matter personal attention, having actually met the parents on at least two or three occasions in 1988 at a time convenient to the parents, and that, of course, does not mean office hours. Notwithstanding that, in January 1989, during the Christmas recess, at the request of the representatives of the action group, the parents asked to put the up-dated position to me because there were again difficulties.
It is, as I said to the Minister, a humbling process to listen to a group of parents describe how they organise their lives around their handicapped children. Some of them have, of course, other, perfectly normal children, who need the love and affection of their parents and do not need to be shut out because of concentration on one of the children. We all live together on this planet as equal citizens and it is remarkable what the parents of handicapped children have to do, and do willingly, to create as normal a life as possible for both their normal and handicapped children.
I give the Minister four of the examples I was given in January of this year in relation to 1988, having been told in late 1987 that matters had been put right and that, by and large, services were adequate. First of all, Liam, aged five, was at Wilson Stuart for two years but over an 18-month period received no physiotherapy. At one time this young lad was actually left off the speech therapy programme as he was thought to be uncommunicative. The whole point about speech therapy, I thought, was to increase and improve communication skills.
Next, Anthony, aged six, at Wilson Stuart for three years: during 1988 he received no physiotherapy at all. This young lad had a real problem with balance, with no chance to help improve it through physiotherapy, and the parents told me that he had indeed, stagnated.
Kate, aged eight, was assessed as needing intensive physiotherapy and yet over an 18-month period received virtually none, albeit this was partially due to illness among physiotherapy staff. Tragic though that is, and this is appreciated and understood by the parents, there were not enough resources to back up physiotherapy staff who became ill.
Then there was Katherine, aged seven. She again had had a period of almost 18 months with no physiotherapy.

Indeed, she was removed from Wilson Stuart in September 1988, and was actually sponsored by Birmingham city council at a residential school near Cardiff.
Many of the pupils attending this school, which serves at least four of the north Birmingham constituencies, reside not in the area of west Birmingham health authority but of north Birmingham health authority, and I understand north Birmingham health authority makes no financial contribution to west Birmingham health authority in respect of those services.
I do not expect the Minister to deal with this point, as I know that this matter may well end up being addressed as a result of the recent White Paper on the Health Service, but the general issue of the input to special schools is not addressed at all in the White Paper. I do not intend to raise that here tonight.
In January I again took up these matters, and indeed other matters relating to Wilson Stuart School, with West Birmingham health authority and I had a considered response from the chairman on 14 February. He made it quite clear that the situation was improving from a managerial point of view and that the authority was to employ physiotherapists who would provide a better service than had been provided. Notwithstanding the points which the chairman made, he concluded:
I think that the authority would accept that the need and demand for physiotherapy at the school outstrips supply, but I think that the measures that we have taken indicate our concern to maximise the use of limited resources.
The "need and demand" for physiotherapy input at Wilson Stuart school "outstrips supply". It could not be clearer that there are not sufficient resources for the pupils at Wilson Stuart school. The parents and I do not criticise anyone at the school. We have no criticisms of the non-teaching staff including the caretaker, cleaners and the dinner ladies or of the teaching staff including Mr. Grantham the headmaster. We also have no criticisms of the physiotherapists. The school is extremely well supported by the local community. The school's annual fete attracts well over 2,000 people. It is impossible to move for the hustle and bustle of people willing to support that important school. The parents' action group and the governors have been very supportive in their fight for their rights.
I appreciate that the legal position has been slightly muddied. Until the end of last year I do not think that it was possible for a local authority under statute law to employ physiotherapists or speech therapists. That would have been classed as non-educational provision.
Unless pupils at schools such as Wilson Stuart, who are typical of the 100,000-odd pupils who have had statements written about them, can obtain physiotherapy, some of it on a daily basis, they cannot receive the education which is their right. As a layman I would say that there is a specific and direct connection between the input of physiotherapy servies and the receipt of education. I would argue that that input becomes an educational provision because those children cannht receive an education without it.
I accept that section 7 of the Education Act 1981 was changed during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988. An amendment was passed in the Lords at the third attempt against the wishes of the Government, but they accepted it in this place and there was no attempt to overturn it.
That change potentially allows local educational authorities to employ therapists, although there are no extra resources to enable them to do so. The change is referred to in paragraph 64 of the draft circular issued by the Department of Education and Science in December. I believe that that draft circular is out for consultation at the moment.
Paragraph 64 contains the only mention in the draft circular to the amendment to section 7 of the Education Act 1981. However, there is no mention of the resource implications and the resources are still a matter for health authorities and not the local education authorities. According to the draft circular, the local education authorities may provide services but the responsibility for provision rests with social services departments and district health authorities. There is no question of buck-passing there.
It has been put to me—although I do not know how far this might progress—that the position is so serious in many special schools that the deprivation of a proper education caused by a lack of those services might result in the Government being dragged before the European Court of Human Rights. That is being contemplated at the moment. Obviously the amendment to the 1981 Act referred to in the draft circular relates to the case involving Avril Muller of Colne and Lancashire county council in respect of speech therapy provision for Avril's nine-year old son Christopher. I understand that the Court of Appeal ruled on that case last week.
I make no criticism of health authorities, which work as closely as they can with local authorities in the provision of educational and social services. However, they are hamstrung. Last August, the Birmingham-based National Association of Health Authorities published a report on health authority concerns about children with special educational needs. That report resulted from a survey of health authorities concerning implementation of the Education Act 1981. My understanding is that up to last Wednesday, the Government had not responded to that report. Although the Minister is concerned with educational matters, I hope, that as there is a joint responsibility between two Departments, he will be able to comment on that important report.
That case, which may or may not go to the House of Lords, concerns the provision of speech therapy for Avril's nine-year old son, Christopher. It is claimed that speech therapy must be provided, and the courts support the mother in that contention. The same case could be made for physiotherapy as for speech therapy, where the potential damage to the child's education is such that he or she does not receive the education to which they have a right. We do not really want to refer all such cases to the European Court, if only because they take so long. It is the children who suffer from such delays.
It must be remembered that this country is not short of financial resources. We may think that it is now 5·25 am on Monday 13 March, but to the 55 million other people in this country it is Tuesday—Budget day. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a tremendous surplus, but probably he is too frightened to spend it. If a little of that surplus could be given to health authorities for extra resources, such as physiotherapists and speech therapists to help the 100,000 children having special educational needs, it would not go amiss. It would not be wasted but would represent a fantastic investment in those children, in their future, and in their families and communities.
No fewer than 105 health authorities with responsibility under the 1981 Act for children with special needs responded to the survey, which represents a substantial proportion of those involved. The report kicks off with a quote from a health authority in the north-west that
this district is unable to meet fully the physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy needs of children in either mainstream or special schools … The generally held opinion was that whilst the procedure imposed by the circular was both comprehensive and largely appropriate, it has the major effect of placing a heavy administrative demands on occupational physiotherapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists, senior clinical medical officers, health visitors and all sectors' attendant clerical support staff.
I ask the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend in the Department of Health to ensure that the circular, when it is published, removes some of the bureaucratic burden on the specialist professionals. It may be that more clerical resources—perhaps including specialist clerical resources—will release professional physiotherapists and speech therapists to do the job that they are trained and want to do, which is serving their patients.
Let me put on record part of the report's summary and conclusions for follow-up purposes, as I certainly do not expect this to be the end of the matter. Its powerful arguments include part of the submission from the district general manager of a Mersey region authority:
It was one of the intentions of the 1981 Education Act that education authorities should first outline a child's special educational needs as perceived after a multi-professional assessment and then make a statement of how it was proposed to meet those needs. One object of this exercise was to use the assessments to ascertain levels of need in various respects, this information to be used for planning purposes etc. The reality has been that the distinction between these two stages has been fudged and blurred as much as possible because a clear separation of the two would simply indicate the stark reality of the gap between need and provision, and make life impossible for education authorities. The agencies involved have therefore entered into more or less of an implicit conspiracy to mumble about ascertained need sufficiently vaguely for the statement of provision to be made in terms of the grossly inadequate resources available. I am advised that this is a professionally and ethically unacceptable situation with which, however, we are forced to live.
That is a powerful indictment from a health authority administrator concerned, I suspect, that parents were being conned.
According to the report, it
was the generally held opinion that the continuing successful implementation of the 1981 Education Act"—
for it has been a plus, and I do not knock it in that respect—
did and will, depend on the allocation of additional resources to:
fund an appropriate number of paramedical posts to provide therapeutic services of good quality,
provide nursing care in mainstream schools for children with special physical needs,
provide adequate administrative/clerical support to professional staff."
I cannot over-emphasise the importance of that last item. We are not calling for a doubling or tripling of the number of therapists, but for the full potential of existing therapists to be released. Hospital consultants are not expected to do the filing: that is done by filing clerks and trained administrative and clerical staff so that surgeons can be released to perform operations. It is exactly the same at other levels of health care.
The report concludes:


The general impression is of health and local education authorities struggling with greater or lesser success—in terms of administrative co-ordination—against the fundamental problem of under-resourcing.
That problem is constantly reiterated.
The 1981 Act has, I think, been on the statute book for long enough. In view of this extra survey revealing health authorities' concern that they are unable to fulfil its full requirements, we should now put the necessary resources into making it a reality. The final paragraph of the report quotes the Trent region as saying:
The Circular on its own, it is felt"—
I presume that this will apply equally to the draft circular—
could not be revised to assist health authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities. To put it bluntly, it is more people that are required, not more paper!
That is putting it most bluntly. The report concluded that the National Association of Health Authorities requested that the Department of Education and Science, together with the Department of Health
immediately respond to the matters detailed in this report, setting out a timetable for action to ensure that children with special needs do receive the assistance that is theirs by right." I emphasise that "by right.
Under British and international law, children have an inalienable right to an education. It would be a tragedy if British citizens have to seek that right under international law because they cannot get it under British law. Therefore, the Government are required to respond sensitively and carefully to a matter which concerns every constituency in the country and involves 134 children statemented as having special needs.
I know that the Minister is a caring and sensitive Minister, so I stress with all the force as I can that the needs outlined in those statements must be met with sufficient resources to allow those citizens with disabilities that require special services to achieve their full potential.
The House of Commons must address the matter, particularly as we all know, and as will be confirmed later today, the country is not short of financial resources.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): First, I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising the debate and for the manner in which he made his speech. Clearly he spoke not only for the interests of his constituents but on a number of general issues which have exercised his concern for some time.
I, too, have been impressed by the sheer commitment of parents of children with statemented needs. The way in which they deal with the pressure that puts on the family, whether or not they have other children who do not have statemented needs, extracts the admiration of many Members of Parliament who meet such parents. Those parents have to be, and nearly always are highly motivated and particularly dedicated. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to address the subject of children with special educational needs—an issue which transcends party differences and unites the House in a way that few other subjects can.
I shall spend just a few moments on definitions which are germane to a number of points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It needs to be recognised from the

outset that "children with special educational needs" is not a term which defines a homogeneous group, easily identifiable and equatable with a label. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's supportive remarks on the objectives of the Education Act 1981. Although he is now looking at the follow-through and the practicalities, we agree that it was a good Act in its intention and most of its practice. Since that Act, and following the recommendations of the Warnock committee, the concept of special needs has been applied to children who have a learning difficulty which requires special educational provision to be made for them.
The Warnock committee estimated that perhaps 20 per cent. of children have, at some time in their school career, special educational needs, and that at any one time one sixth of the school population may have learning difficulties. The bulk of such children's needs can be met by special educational services—the 1981 Act uses the term "provision"—supplied by their own mainstream school. A small proportion of children, however—the Warnock committee estimated that it might constitute 2 per cent. of the overall school population—can be expected to have difficulties which are more severe and which call for something extra.
Under the 1981 Act those children will be formally assessed and provided with a statement of SEN. The statement specifies the nature and extent of the learning difficulty. It specifies also the special educational provision or services which they require in order to address those difficulties. The emphasis is rightly upon the individual needs of the child. The particular requirements of each pupil are assessed and provided for without regard to some general category of disability or a particular label. This was not discussed tonight, but it is all germane. It is the relevant backcloth to all discussions in this area. I think most people across the parties and across the experts welcomed the move away from labels categorising young people. That was a positive move.
For those children within the Warnock 2 per cent. the responsibility for assessing and determining the nature of the child's learning difficulty, and what the requisite provision should be, lies with the local education authority. The nature of the services or provision specified on the statement will depend upon the nature of the learning difficulties identified after a formal multi-professional assessment, which must include educational, medical and psychological advice, together with parental representations and any evidence submitted by or on behalf of the child's parents.
I will say a few words about the educational provision, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is only interested in the mix of the educational and health provisions and how the two relate. On the educational provision, a distinction is made in the 1981 Act between educational provision and non-educational provision which may be required to meet the needs of children with statements. The educational provision of services is to be specified in terms of facilities and equipment, staffing arrangements, the curriculum and teaching methods. Where relevant, educational environment, access and transport provision should be specified. Such educational services are the responsibility of the LEA. LEAs are legally bound to provide the special educational services which are detailed in the statement of SEN.
As to non-educational provision, an LEA is also required to provide details in a statement of any


non-educational provision which it considers advantageous and is satisfied will be made available for the child by the district health authority, the social services department or some other body, if not made available by the LEA. The Education Reform Act 1988 changed the legal position to enable an LEA to provide noneducational services, but it does not place a duty on an LEA to do so. That is the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent dispute in the courts involving parents in Lancashire. I noted from a press statement of 11 March 1989 that the Court of Appeal ruled that speech therapy could be classed as a special educational provision under the 1981 Education Act, so the council had a duty to provide it. Further on, Lord Justice Balcombe said that the court accepted that such therapy stood between medicine and education. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's comment in the High Court was that at one end of the scale it was akin to teaching while at the other it might be regarded as purely medical.
According to The Independent report, a very interesting parallel was asserted: to teach an adult who had lost his larynx because of cancer could well be considered as treatment rather than education, but to teach a child who had never been able to communicate by language seemed, according to the judge, just as much an educational provision as to teach a child to communicate by writing. The judges refused the council leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but that does not prevent a direct application for leave. For reasons with which I am sure the House is all too familiar, I shall not comment further on that matter, except to say that it goes to the very heart of the debate that the hon. Gentleman has raised on this occasion and, indeed, on other occasions.
I want to deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about physiotherapy in special schools and to the resource implications to which he referred. The provision of physiotherapy services for children in both special and ordinary schools remains the responsibility of individual health authorities, although, under paragraph 83 of schedule 12 to the Education Reform Act 1988, education authorities can provide any therapy specified in a child's statement of special educational needs. We would expect them to co-operate with health authorities in the provision of physiotherapy for such children. Health and local education authorities must work closely together to make the best use of available resources to meet the needs of individual children. We should not object to a local education authority funding physiotherapy provision where this had been discussed with the health authority and was in the best interests of the child. Physiotherapy services are required by many groups of patients with acute and chronic conditions. It is for individual authorities to determine the priority that can be given to services for children in special schools, in the light of the particular local circumstances.
As for resource implications nationally, expenditure on physiotherapy services has increased from £38·2 million in 1978–79 to £115·3 million in 1986–87. Expenditure on community physiotherapy services, which are particularly relevant to children with special educational needs, is increasing at about twice the rate of the increase in expenditure on the hospital physiotherapy services. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health were here he would probably talk about the Health Service index. Even making that allowance, the

growth that I have cited is real, and I suspect that the debate will turn on targeting and on the link between educational provision and Health Service provision.
The numbers of physiotherapists employed in the NHS in England continues to increase. The total went up from 6,430 whole-time equivalents in 1979 to 9,330 whole-time equivalents in 1987—an increase of 45 per cent. The Department of Health is looking at the longer-term demands for, and supply of, physiotherapists through a joint Department of Health—National Health Service manpower advisory group. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is co-operating in a study of manpower issues, and an initial report is expected later this year
The Wilson Stuart school is, of course situated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That school has had difficulty in securing adequate levels of physiotherapy. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the Department and with the West Birmingham health authority, which is responsible for such provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I begin with the time-honoured words "I am informed that". I will unravel my own conclusions, but I am informed that the position at the Wilson Stuart school has improved. There are now four physiotherapists working full-time at the school throughout the year, including the school holidays. In addition, the school has a full-time physiotherapy helper and a part-time helper, who works 20 hours per week
The relevant unit general manager meets the head teacher each term to discuss and review provision. I am advised that there are currently no unresolved issues between the school and the district health authority. Having said that, however, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will very carefully and clearly draw the attention of my hon. Friends to his comments.
We shall look especially at the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—of Liam, Anthony, Kate and Katherine, who could provide interesting exemplars about the change of requirements and therefore of provision that the hon. Gentleman is commending. I am afraid that I cannot go any further tonight than to use the word "interesting" because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot commit a colleague to a particular response. However. I am sure that colleagues at the Department of Health will respond to the hon. Gentleman in detail.
I turn now to the report of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales on the implementation of the Education Act 1981 to which the hon. Gentleman referred, having had the courtesy to advise me that it would figure in his speech. The report adds little to what is already known and is a disappointingly anecdotal and, some would argue, even superficial report that provides no firm evidence on the level of manpower resources that health authorities need to fulfil their role. Several initiatives are already under way, aimed at solving some of the problems that have been highlighted. They include a major research project undertaken by the Institute of Education and jointly funded by the then Department of Health and Social Security, and Department of Education and Science. Although originally three separate research projects, the findings have been pooled to produce a training pack and a manual for use at local authority level, which is aimed at improving local collaboration for children with special educational needs. The training pack and manual are due to be published in the near future.
There has also been recent agreement on a revised pay and grading structure for speech therapists. There is also a joint Department of Health and NHS manpower advisory group to consider the long-term demand for and supply of physiotherapists. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is also co-operating with a study of the manpower and an initial study is due—

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): We in the south-east would be peculiarly pleased if the proposals to allow district health authorities to pay the going rate for services such as speech therapy are implemented as proposed in the White Paper because in my constituency at the moment the acquiring and retaining of speech therapists has become virtually impossible because of the price of housing, and that that is putting a huge strain on the treatment of children with special educational needs.

Mr. Butcher: That is potentially a major debate in its own right. Indeed, if I were sitting where my hon. Friend is sitting, I would join him in making a fairly lengthy speech about the rigidities in national pay systems and structures. I suspect that that will loom larger and larger in my Department, the Department of Health and in other major employers of public service personnel and I hope that it will do so as much in the minds of trade unionists as in those of Ministers. I have no doubt that several of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-east and in London are becoming anxious about that question. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not launch off into that at this time in the morning, whether in the context of speech therapists, teachers or other public servants. However, his point was well made.
I return to the report by the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales and the comment that the joint DHSS-DES circular 83 will be taken into account in the current review of that guidance.
In conclusion, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that his concerns will be brought carefully to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department of Health. I was interested in his view that circulars should remove the bureaucratic burden. They certainly should, and I suspect that in the future someone will do an audit of the impact of circulars on education or health. For the hon. Gentleman's money, and mine also, it is what they do for costs, simplicity—or the lack of it—as well as resources, manpower and womanpower, that is important.
At this time of the morning, a number of matters fall out of context but others return into it. The hon. Member for Perry Barr has done the House a service in raising the subject today.
At 4.15 am, the blackbird in Mr. Speaker's Court was singing with gusto. Such a welcome when one arrives at the House at that time of the morning tends to cheer one up a bit, but one is also cheered by the quality of debate on an occasion such as this.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: If the House will forgive me, I shall say a few words.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on raising, with his usual sincerity, what is happening in his area, which is

reflected throughout the country. That is one of the most important points to be made following the Minister's speech.
I understand the problems that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is experiencing in the south-east, but it is important to recognise that they are being faced nationwide. In my constituency, the employment position is different to that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A major report appeared recently in the local press about the shortage of speech therapists and the problems recruiting them. I hope that the Minister will not mind me saying that he mentioned manpower, when womanpower would have been appropriate. Most of the people employed in speech therapy and physiotherapy are women.
Speech therapists' pay is a major issue. The Minister will be aware of a case that has been before an industrial tribunal and is now before the European Court about equal pay for speech therapists for doing work of equal value. I have been involved in the case because the speech therapists are members of my union. Indeed, I have met the women who brought the case.
The main issue involved in this subject, as in quite a few others, is resources. There is the commitment and will to move forward and resolve problems. As the Minister said, there is cross-party support about need and even the way in which it should be met. We know what we should be doing, but the resources are not being provided to meet those needs.
A major crisis is facing speech therapists especially, but also physiotherapists. As we are becoming an aging society, we are making more demands on physiotherapists. The problems of speech therapy for children who are or are not statemented is becoming increasingly acute. There is hardly an hon. Member who has not had respresentations made to him or her about shortages in their area and children whose needs are not being served. There was widespread support for the Education Act 1981. I was in a primary school yesterday where the head said that the best piece of legislation for education passed under this Government was the 1981 Act. However, he said that the problem is that the resources required have not followed to ensure that the Act can be brought into effect. The welcome for that Act is now tinged with near despair at the lack of resources to fulfil its aims and the aspirations of parents of children with special needs.
I appreciate that since his appointment the Minister has been studying special needs with some attention and in some detail. I hope that he will continue to do that. The resolution of the issue that we have raised tonight requires some national direction because, with the implementation of local financial management for most of their schools, local education authorities have had the resources that they have available constrained, if not restricted. In talking to the authorities, they have expressed to me concern about health authorities being frequently unable to meet the demand, so education authorities may have to meet the demand, but with a diminishing resource base.
I hope that the Minister will continue to study this matter. The Opposition will return to the matter fairly frequently, I hope, over the next year. The will and commitment of parents, local communities and local authorities is there. It is the responsibility of the House to ensure that adequate resources are made available so that that will and commitment are not frustrated and the aspirations of parents and the abilities and prospects of the children are given the fullest support from the House. That


inevitably means resources. I hope that we can come back to that subject and reassure parents and authorities soon that the resources will be available so that the children will be given the opportunities and support that they need.

Orders of the Day — 36th Engineer Regiment

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this morning the important issue of the 36th Engineer Regiment. The issue is important not only to the regiment itself, but to the town of Maidstone, and it carries wide implications for decision-making on matters concerning the armed services. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who is in his place, and who will, I know, be participating later in the debate, seeking permission to raise this issue, because the 36th Engineer Regiment is just across the boundary from my constituency, in his constituency. The issue is one of such vast local importance that it concerns us both.
The matter before us is the proposed move from Maidstone, where the regiment has been for the past 40 years, and with which it has a considerable connection and in which it takes considerable pride, to Thorney island, a place with which it has no connection and in which it would be difficult for it to find any pride or affinity.
From correspondence and representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and myself to my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), my hon. Friend will be aware of the strength of feeling in both town and regiment and of our concerns about some of the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering saw fit to visit the regiment in December in response to a request I made in a debate in July. I shall say more about that visit later. I think that it was important because it opened my hon. Friend's eyes not only to the strength of feeling but to the valid arguments against any move from the present base.
We are talking about considerably more than sentiment. It is not sentiment that makes us raise the matter in the House. It is concern for recruitment and retention, and grave concern for morale. We are concerned too, that financial and operational sense should prevail in the decision that is made.
The 36th Engineer Regiment is a regiment of sappers and, by definition, spends a great deal of time away. The regiment spends the majority of its time outside Maidstone and, indeed, abroad. For example, 50th Field Squadron has spent nine months of each of the past three years abroad, while 20th Field Squadron, which looks set to follow in its footsteps, spent nine months of last year abroad. That contrasts sharply with the time spent away by the artillery regiment now based on Thorney island, which spends only comparatively brief periods abroad.
During the past year the 36th Engineers have been posted to Belize, Cyprus, the Falklands, Ascension Island, Germany and Northern Ireland. The regiment has one of the highest rates of separation from spouses and families in the Army. Let us pause to think what that means. If we are to recruit and retain soldiers, we need morale to be high. An essential part of the morale of a regiment that spends so much time abroad is that the men, who spend so much time away from their wives and children, should be convinced that they are happy and integrated into the community. Similarly, the wives will have a considerable influence in determining whether their husbands will stay in the Army. If the wives are unhappy, they will influence


them not to stay on in the Army and not to renew their contracts when statutory periods are over. They will not give a happy account of the regiment to potential recruits.
Of the 803 men in the 36th Engineers, 604 operate out of Maidstone. They have with them 197 wives and 274 children. The factors that keep wives happy are social integration, the opportunity to work—a most important point if husbands are away for any length of time—and schools. Social integration means accessibility. In Maidstone the 36th Engineers are very near the centre of a large town. Some 123 of the wives work locally in the community. There are good accessible shops and schools, which include the envied grammar schools.
By comparison, on Thorney island the nearest post office is three miles away. The nearest shopping centres is 12 miles away. Buses run once every two hours. There is limited schooling with limited choice and there is extremely limited opportunity for employment. It is almost certainly necessary to own a car to get to and from work—not a happy prospect for an Army wife. Is it any wonder that the wife of a CO on Thorney referred to:
real welfare problems caused by the isolated nature of the island"?
Thorney island presents a similar prospect to the Falklands, but without the penguins. It simply cannot be an encouragement to wives, or a boost to soldiers' morale if they feel that their families will be removed to a remote area with few facilities and that their wives and children will be left alone to face that lack of facilities in that remote area for considerable periods.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health visited the regiment last December, he pronounced himself impressed with all that he saw of the social integration of the wives in the community. Those wives made strong representations to him to the effect that they wanted to stay in Maidstone, that they were happy in Maidstone, that they had confidence in Maidstone's schooling, and that, if they were to stay on as Army wives and if their husbands were to pursue careers in the armed services, staying at Maidstone was a major factor in any such decisions.
There will be problems in retention and recruitment if the regiment is moved to Thorney island. That is a pity, because, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there is currently a high retention rate in the regiment.
Combined with the possibility of moving to Thorney island, we must consider the possibility of alternative employment. At the moment, a married Sapper on a nine-year contract can expect to earn £100·47 a week, but, if he were to leave the Army and take employment with a local Maidstone construction firm, he could expect to earn £221—twice as much—a week. Is there any point in having brand new barracks on Thorney island—we would have to build such barracks to accommodate the 36th Engineers—if we end up with no Sappers to put in them?
The history of the 36th Engineer Regiment is extremely proud. It includes service in the Falklands war. Several soldiers were badly wounded in that conflict. The regiment's efforts to rehabilitate them, keep them on and find them employment have impressed my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, myself and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The proposed move is a waste, not only of retention, recruitment and training but of the massive efforts involved in attracting young men into the

regiment, and it is an expensively equipped regiment. It has £13 million worth of engineering and vehicles alone in Maidstone and half as much again in Laarbruch in Germany.
There are arguments not only about retention but about operational matters. It is the only regular United Kingdom home defence regiment, and it carries out exercises in every country. At the moment, it is placed close to the royal school of military engineering in Chatham. It plays a major part in disaster relief. I cannot see that it can be anything but operationally less effective if it is moved to Thorney island.
Then there is national policy. The Gaffney report identified the regiment and its relationship with the town as ideal for a major unit. It seems odd to fly in the face of that report and to move the regiment.
Then there are financial arguments. I submit, and the regiment would submit, that the Minister's analysis is wrong. For example, it was said that, if the regiment were to be moved, there would be £8 million worth of savings in maintenance costs. The costs of the new barracks on Thorney island have been substantially under-estimated, and the loss of retention and the expense of recruiting and training again from scratch is considerable.
On the first point, a new road is involved. I am hugely proud of most things connected with my constituency, but I am hugely horrified by its traffic. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent will join me in that horror. Traffic flow is extremely restricted, largely because entry roads from other major towns are simply not up to carrying it.
One of the proposed new roads actually goes through the site of the old barracks—not the barracks currently occupied by most of the regiment, but the old barracks. The council and regiment have been negotiating what will happen when that road goes through the old barracks. The possibility is that the barracks will be rebuilt at the expense of the council and not of the Ministry of Defence. If that hope is realised, it follows that the £8 million worth of maintenance savings is, in fact, not such a saving at all, because the rebuilding will be carried out without expense to the Army. It also makes building afresh at Thorney island much less attractive. That would be an entirely incremental expense to the Ministry, whereas, if the rebuilding is at Maidstone, it will be an expense to the council as well as to the Army.
Secondly, for example, the costs at Thorney island do not include separate officers' messes that would normally be expected, and which would certainly inflate the current estimates considerably.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Minister will be only too aware of the costs of the highly technical training of a sapper and what it would amount to if large numbers were to leave and had to be replaced.
It is not only the effect on the regiment about which I am concerned, but the effect on the town. A couple of weeks ago I presented to the House a petition from the men of Kent to retain the engineers where they are. There are 21 regular users of the facilities enjoyed by the regiment. They include sports clubs, but also clubs for the hearing-impaired, wheelchair clubs, the police, the fire brigade and many other important groups, clubs and institutions in Maidstone. In addition to regular users, there are also numerous ad hoc users.
The regiment enjoys the freedom of the town with which it has had a 40-year association. Since I have been


a Member of Parliament, I have been aware of the gratitude felt by the town to the regiment for the substantial help that it provided during the October wind storm that completely wrecked parts of my constituency. That caused tremendous travel and access problems in Kent which the regiment was able to ease.
Similarly, the regiment has been used consistently to help with snow clearance, not only in my constituency but in many parts of Kent. It is difficult to imagine that the regiment will come back from Thorney island when we have snow.
I am joined in my plea to keep the regiment in Maidstone by the borough council, by parishes, by schools, by those who use the facilities and by those who are grateful for their presence and for their disaster relief.
The suspense has been too long. The question mark hanging over the regiment has been there for many years. It is having unsettling effects. It is unsettling for morale, for the wives and for recruitment. The general belief held locally was that we had convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering during his visit that there was an unanswerable case for keeping the regiment on its present site. Now, because of a changeover, once again there is a question mark. People are no longer so convinced locally that their views are fully understood. I would welcome reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on that point if on no other.
Meanwhile the negotiations over the road, the rebuilding and the contribution from the council must all be carried out in a vacuum because we do not know the regiment's long-term future. It flies in the face of national policy and the Gaffney report if we remove the regiment. It will cause a wasteful loss in a regiment with an excellent record of retention. It will make operational nonsense. There could be financial gains from staying rather than from going.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider visiting the regiment? I recognise that that invitation should be properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent. Will the Minister settle the matter one way or the other? If my hon. Friend cannot offer a firm settlement this morning, will he at least give a firm date for its settlement as the suspense has gone on for too long and the reasons for the disastrous move are not understood by the regiment. by the town or by its parliamentary representatives?

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for raising this issue and I am glad that she has given such an overwhelmingly comprehensive display of the argument for retaining the regiment in Maidstone. I am particularly glad, because I only received notification of her intention to raise this matter less than 12 hours ago and that has not provided me with the same opportunities for research as my hon. Friend has usefully employed.
In addition to my hon. Friend's forceful argument there are three things that I shall mention. First, it is appropriate that the MOD should constantly review the capital stock upon which the defence of the country is based. Changing financial circumstances mean that any part of the Ministry's capital assets are likely to be in need of revaluation at regular intervals. I have no quarrel therefore with the Ministry's desire to consider the financial value of

Invicta barracks as part of its regular review process. There could be no more appropriate time to review that site than when, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a part of those barracks is about to be redeveloped.
During that perfectly proper review I hope that the Ministry has understood the value of keeping the regiment in a place where it is not only a focus for recruitment of young men, but a place where service families are sufficiently content to live. It is therefore possible to retain such highly valued people in a highly competitive atmosphere and because of that the regiment has flourished.
The straight book transaction that means that land in Maidstone may be more valuable than land in Thorney island only tells a small part of the story. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone rightly argued, there is no point in building new barracks in Thorney island merely to find that everyone who might have lived there has left the service because their families have dissuaded them by telling them that there is nothing to do down there and that they would be much better off earning considerably more in private employment.
The second point that must be stressed is the opportunity provided to the regiment for joint exercises with the royal school of military engineering at Brompton barracks. Such exercises represent a sensible use of joint facilities. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has learnt from the files, if nowhere else, that, in the past I have been involved in attempts to acquire training territory in my constituency. What a bitter disappointment it was that the last of those efforts fell to bits. The principal villain in that negotiation was the sheer cumbersome review procedure for such acquisitions which operates within the Department. I hope that he will take on board the enormous importance of the Ministry of Defence being able to move swiftly when the opportunity to acquire territory for exercises or for other purposes comes up. Land in the south-east is at such a premium that it is absurd that procedures are so cumbersome that any private developer or farmer can move faster than the Ministry of Defence. I very much hope that that lesson has been safely learnt.
Thirdly, I happen to share the Government's belief that it is appropriate for Government personnel to be distributed around the United Kingdom as far as that is practicable. It is wholly wrong to fill up expensive space in overcrowded urban areas and parts of the economy that are under pressure with central Government bureaucracy. I believe in the dispersal of personnel around the country, but to move an Army unit to another part of the south of England requires enormous justification, and so far none has been forthcoming. It would not be right to destroy the close local links of the regiment merely in order to move it somewhere else in the south.
As it happens, in this case the regiment's operational requirements are much better served by keeping it close to the motorway network, by which it can swiftly transport its heavy equipment and skills to any part of the south when they are needed.
When I first raised this subject some years ago, after the story had broken that a threat was hanging over the barracks, almost at once two major local crises occurred. The engineers were indispensable in coping with the effects of the extraordinary blizzard and with the exceptional hurricane, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone pointed out.
The liaison with the civil power, which has been of a high order in Kent, is not lightly to be thrown aside. It is good for the Army and the future of the armed services in Britain that there should be warm and effective links with the civil power. Thank goodness, it is a long time since people in this country have had direct experience of war, and it is sometimes difficult to persuade them that the armed forces are a necessary and appropriate form of employment for their children.
This is a clear demonstration that regiments such as the engineers greatly contribute to the quality of civilian life and is well worth treasuring. Maidstone is a fine place in which to demonstrate that; it is shown there every day of the year. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has already made it known that the regiment may stay for the foreseeable future. I hope that the debate this morning will encourage him to lengthen his perspective to the point where "foreseeable future" becomes just "the future".

Mr. Don Dixon: I intervene briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), our Front Bench spokesman on the Army, asked me to apologise for his absence this morning due to a long-standing engagement. I can assure the hon. Lady that the points made in the debate have been listened to very carefully.
I have always had a keen interest in the Royal Engineers, being an ex-Sapper myself and having served at Chatham, both at Kitchener and Brompton barracks, many years ago, before serving with the Royal Engineers in Cyrenaica, formerly a small country now part of Libya. I well remember spending many months building a bridge half-way between Benghazi and Tobruk, at a place called the Wadi el Coovu, the Valley of Caves, and to the best of my knowledge that bridge is still there 40 years later. So I agree with the points made about the skills of the Royal Engineers and certainly support any efforts to maintain that particular regiment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has been able to take advantage of this debate to raise once again the question of the deployment of 36th Engineer Regiment, which has, as she pointed out, been based in Maidstone for many years. I know that she has a strong personal interest in this matter, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my apreciation for the concern that she has shown for the regiment, its morale and welfare, not only on behalf of those serving in it but also of their families. These are obviously matters of no less concern to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and to those directly responsible for the management and well-being of the Army. I am therefore also glad to have this opportunity to say something about 36th Engineer Regiment and about the Ministry of Defence's policy on managing the defence estate, although I would have preferred a different hour than six o'clock in the morning.
It might be helpful if I first say a little about the history and role of 36th Engineer Regiment and its connection

with Maidstone. The regiment forms part of 5th Airborne Brigade in peacetime and has a strength of 621, all ranks, at Maidstone. In peacetime it exercises and carries out a variety of tasks in the United Kingdom, including the provision of emergency assistance as and when required. Elements of the regiment also exercise overseas and are liable for emergency tours in Belize and the Falklands, as well as in Northern Ireland. In war, the regiment and its squadrons would be required to carry out a variety of roles in this country, the NATO central region, and beyond. During the many years that 36th Engineer Regiment has been based at Maidstone it has forged an excellent relationship with the local authority and the local community. This is symbolised by the grant to it of the freedom of Maidstone which, other commitments permitting, the regiment exercises each year.
I have spoken of the regiment's long association with Maidstone and the strong ties that it has with the town and the local community. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has also spoken warmly of that connection and of the value placed upon it. I am sure that her words will be echoed by members of that community, by their other representatives and by the local authorities there. From the Army's viewpoint it is gratifying that the regiment stands in such high regard in the area and that its presence there is so well appreciated. I am sure that it is well-deserved recognition of its place in the community, the part that it plays in local life and the assistance that it gives from time to time, about which I shall have more to say. I also know that the regiment itself attaches considerable value to this connection and that it appreciates the benefits of its location and the facilities to which it has access through being based at Maidstone. I am thus well aware that the regiment's present location is to the mutual advantage of the Army and of the civil community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) have made clear this morning.
I wish to consider the particular question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and I will explain why the possibility of relocating 36th Engineers Regiment is under consideration and the factors that we must take into consideration when reaching a decision in that respect.
The size of the defence estate depends on the needs of the services and the procurement executive, but we are determined that it should be no larger than is necessary to carry out its task efficiently and effectively. We vigorously pursue opportunities to dispose of land and buildings no longer required for defence purposes. In the last financial year, for example, we raised more than £75 million by such sales and we hope at least to double that figure this year. Those sums are in addition to more than £400 million achieved in sales of land since 1979. I was encouraged to receive the explicit support of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent for that policy this morning.
Ministry of Defence landholdings of some 600,000 acres account for about 1 per cent. of the total area of the United Kingdom. Some four-fifths of this MOD land is taken up by airfields and training areas, and our main opportunities for reduction and rationalisation are therefore likely to occur in the remaining area with, for example, depots, workshops and barrack accommodation. We are always seeking to identify opportunities for rationalisation in those areas, and decisions on future deployments take account of the estate costs.
As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, our main consideration must be the operational requirement of the Armed Forces. Although possible receipts from disposals are one element in such decisions, we cannot manage the estate as a property portfolio in its own right. We need also to take into account other factors such as relocation costs. We are not always able to move as quickly as we would like, as the need to reprovide often very specialised facilities at the new site can involve significant initial capital investment which acts as a delaying factor and in some cases, may negate the advantages of rationalising and disposing of our holdings.
Despite those difficulties, we have recently been able to announce the relocation of a number of facilities which will enable us to release high value sites in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces announced last October that the officer and aircrew selection centre would move from RAF Biggin Hill to RAF Cranwell, where it will be located alongside the RAF college and will benefit from the environment of a busy station with an active military airfield. The decision to close Biggin Hill, with all its associations with the last war and the Battle of Britain, was taken only after a great deal of very careful thought, but it demonstrates the need to keep abreast of changing circumstances and to make the best use of our resources. Of course, we shall be maintaining the Battle of Britain memorial chapel at Biggin Hill, and the Gate Guardians as a lasting remainder of all those who sacrificed their lives within the Biggin Hill sector in the second world war.
Elsewhere, the No. 1 school of technical training will be transferred from RAF Halton to RAF Cosford. That co-location will give us benefits in respect of costs and training facilities. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement announced last week, we have concluded that a move to Preston farm in Teeside is the most cost-effective solution for the headquarters and laboratories of the directorate general of the defence quality assurance. The move would concentrate these functions on a single site with fully modern facilities, while at the same time releasing the Bromley and Woolwich sites that they currently occupy for disposal and redevelopment. We shall be consulting the trade unions about these plans, as is normal practice. More generally, and in line with the Government-wide relocation strategy, we are looking at the options for moving parts of our headquarters away from the high-cost and difficult recruitment area of London. In addition, I hope to be in a position to announce shortly our detailed plans for the rationalisation of the mainly RAF and Army holdings in the north-west London area.
Hon. Members should be in no doubt that we take our responsibilities for the ownership and management of our estate very seriously. It is in that context that we have been considering the current location of 36th Engineer Regiment. A study carried out some five years ago to examine the potential for rationalisation of the estate considered a number of sites of high value which might be vacated and disposed of, and which would yield a substantial return to the defence budget. The site in Maidstone currently occupied by 36th Engineer Regiment was one identified for consideration of disposal in that way, and the report indicated that in view of its development potential the proceeds from selling the site would be very substantial. However, the study recognised

that all cases would have to be considered on their merits and that a range of factors would have to be taken into account in reaching a conclusion. That course has been followed in the Maidstone case.
The Ministry of Defence has accordingly considered possible alternative locations for 36th Engineer Regiment. Two have been identified.—They are Thorney island, near Chichester—mentioned by my hon. Friend—and Hawley, near Aldershot, where one of its squadrons is already based. Both sites are owned by the Ministry of Defence and have space available to accommodate the regiment. New accommodation would need to be built, but the cost would be offset by the expected proceeds from the sale of the Maidstone site. That is, of course, being taken into account in the investment appraisal, together with all the other quantifiable factors which have a bearing on the comparison of the options available to us. They include the cost of the works services that would need to be carried out if the regiment were to remain at Maidstone. The living accommodation there will need refurbishing and modernising in due course, at substantial cost.
As in any other case affecting the deployment of a service unit, a raft of factors must to be taken into consideration, and my hon. Friend has touched on some of them. Not all relevant considerations can be quantified, but we fully appreciate the need to weigh those in the balance as well, in order to arrive at a proper judgment. While it is clear that 36th Engineer Regiment could carry out its task from either of the alternative locations that I mentioned, we need to consider whether they would be as good as Maidstone as locations both for the regiment's peacetime commitments and activities and for its operational role.
We must take account of the need for access to the training facilities which the regiment requires as well as to the parts of the country to which it needs to be able to deploy readily. Its peacetime role includes assistance to the civil authorities in the south-east in such emergencies and natural disasters. I am well aware of the valuable part that it played, together with other Army units in Kent, in the aftermath of last winter's storms, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent also paid tribute.
As my hon. Friends pointed out, there are other perhaps less tangible aspects which cannot he ignored For a regiment of some 650 men, many with wives and families, access to a range of facilities is clearly important. The comparison also needs to take account of the availability and proximity of local schools, health and welfare facilities, shops, social amenities and employment for wives and children.
The importance of that is reinforced by the fact that wives and families regularly need to be left by themselves for periods of three to six months or more when the whole regiment, or parts of it, may be deployed elsewhere in the United Kingdom or overseas. I understand that Maidstone is a popular location from this point of view, and I fully appreciate that. Moreover, I recogise that many members of the regiment and their families are well established at Maidstone, and tend to regard it as a home as well as a place where many of the wives have jobs. I appreciate that in those circumstances there would be some reluctance to leave, whatever the alternative locations might have to offer. We fully recognise the need to take such morale and welfare considerations into


account, and are naturally anxious to avoid any course that might lead to a loss of well-trained and well-motivated manpower from the regiment.
I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate from what I have said that we are well aware that our judgment should not be determined by purely financial considerations, important though those are, and that they will feel assured that the other factors that they have mentioned will also be given due weight.
I have sought to explain the background that has led us to consider the possibility of relocating 36th Engineers Regiment, and to bring out the range of factors that need to be taken into account. We need to consider the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the different locations in relation to all the aspects that I have mentioned so that a balanced judgment can be reached, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will do. I was somewhat bewildered by what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said towards the end of his speech, as I had made no statement about the regiment's future until this morning. Although I understand the unsettling effects of uncertainty, the Army has had a connection with Maidstone for nearly 200 years and it is essential that enough time is given for a thorough evaluation of any alternative. I shall, of course, notify my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent—in whose constituency the regiment is located—of my right hon. Friend's conclusion as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Orders of the Day — North-east Derbyshire (Environmental Regeneration)

Mr. Harry Barnes: As Chernobyl illustrated, at least some environmental issues cannot easily be confined within local or even national boundaries. Certainly they cannot be confined within local boundaries in my constituency.
If, heaven forbid, there were a serious explosion at Staveley Chemicals, the worst effects—depending on the prevailing winds—could have a devastating impact on the Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies rather than on mine. That case, however, is hypothetical; there are actual cases to illustrate my point.
A fire explosion at Leigh Environmental in Killamarsh, in my constituency, in 1986 raised fears and problems in the neighbouring south Yorkshire area, especially in the Rother Valley country park, which is next to the plant and in the Rother Valley constituency. Discharges from Coalite in Bolsover seriously pollute the Doe Lea river, which feeds into the River Rother, part of which runs through my constituency. They are two of the worst-polluted rivers in Europe.
A recent underground fire in Dronfield, in my constituency, threatened Sheffield and south Yorkshire gas supplies. In environmental matters, no man, woman or child is an island. I believe that green issues have strong Socialist implications. The current major environmental issues have general and specific impact on north-east Derbyshire. The problems affecting the ozone layer and the control of CFCs through hairsprays, fridges and so on obviously have the same impact in north-east Derbyshire as they do elsewhere. However, the explosion at Leigh Environmental was caused by the crushing of aerosols. The firm was prosecuted for the danger it created for a YTS apprentice.
Specific problems are also associated with the greenhouse effect through the heating of the atmosphere by the use of fossil fuels and the production of acid rain. That affects two extractive industries in north-east Derbyshire. At one time coal mining was dominant throughout the constituency, but following the closure of Renishaw Park pit, it is confined mainly to High Moor pit. Action needs to be taken to attempt to control the acid rain produced by power stations which make use of fluorspar and limestone which are extracted by Biwaters at Milltown in Ashover, although its licence is to extract merely fluorspar and the limestone should be extracted only temporarily and should be re-established. That is causing considerable problems as movement is by road instead of by rail, which is the sensible way to move coal and chemicals extracted from the ground.
The solution to the greenhouse effect being offered by the Prime Minister is nuclear power, so the cure is likely to be far worse than the disease. Nuclear power is associated with the production of nuclear weapons, which are probably the most serious threat that humanity faces. I am pleased that Derbyshire county council is Labour-controlled and has a nuclear-free zone policy. However, inevitably, part of that policy is a pious commitment to ideas and cannot be put into practice. Unfortunately it does not stop nuclear shipments by rail or on the M1, which clips the end of north-east Derbyshire at


Heath so an accident in that vicinity could seriously contaminate areas such as North Wingfield in my constituency.
In a small nation, the nonsense of nuclear power stations as far away as Sellafield affects everyone, including my constituents. It is clear that free market individualism is incapable of handling the problems that I have outlined. The free market gives power to monopoly capitalism rather than to large numbers of entrepreneurs in classical competition with each other as envisaged by Adam Smith. The Government use political power to remove any constraints upon the operation of monopoly capitalism by containing trade union and employment legislation and allowing only limited or unrealistic regulations such as those affecting Oftel, on which I have a number of constituency problems, and the National Rivers Authority, which will be quite inadequate to handle the problems of the River Rother.
I accept that the Eastern bloc bureaucracy has produced a host of environmental problems and that Chernobyl occurred within the Soviet Union. There are also serious environmental problems in areas such as Latvia. I believe that democratic Socialist solutions of collectivism and participation might help to solve the type of environmental problems that exist in north-east Derbyshire.
Although it is part of my case that the environment knows no boundaries. I had better say something about the boundaries of the area that I am talking about. The north-east Derbyshire district covers the major part of the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East and also a section of the Bolsover constituency. The constituency of Derbyshire, North-East goes into Chesterfield borough, as well as covering the north-east Derbyshire district. It covers the northern part of Staveley, which has Staveley Chemicals in it, and the River Rother running through it. North-east Derbyshire could be defined as the entire area of the Derbyshire, North-East constituency, Chesterfield and Bolsover, which form an integrated unit. Although the three constituencies and the three districts have slightly different boundaries, they have common external boundaries.
I have considerable information on the constituency. I am grateful to Mrs. M. E. Hicken, who is an information consultant living in Brimington, which is close to my constituency. She has supplied fantastic information about the environmental and social make-up of the constituency.
The constituency and the district of north-east Derbyshire are socially divided. The eastern section is solidly Labour and will have masses of losers under the poll tax. It has the same characteristics as the Bolsover constituency. Within each of the wards more than 10 per cent. of the people are still employed in coal mining, a great deal of which takes place outside the constituency boundary. The western section is solidly Conservative, with masses of poll tax gainers. It has the characteristics of west Derbyshire. It is a rural area with two commuter towns.
The usual north-south divide is more of an east-west divide in the constituency. For instance, unemployment in Clay Cross, which in my analysis is in the eastern section, is more than twice the level in Dronfield, which is the western section, although Dronfield has its own working class area.
Environmentally, the eastern and western sections have considerable common interests. We are faced with

electricity privatisation, and the establishment through private Bills, of two ports on the Humber, which will lead to massive imports of coal and will have a great effect on the remaining coal mining in the wider north-east Derbyshire area. In response to that, in one attempt to survive, British Coal will opt for massive opencast mining activities. North-east Derbyshire is part of the Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham central east region of the opencast executive. I have already given evidence against the Rainge site south of Domesmoor in Clay Cross, where the prevailing winds produce pneumonconiosis problems. I have presented a petition to the House on behalf of residents of the Mastin Moor area of Staveley about the development of the Pinnock site, which is to take place a short distance from the recently closed pit at Renishaw Park.
These two sites are but the tip of the iceberg. The whole heart could be ripped out of north-east Derbyshire. Information that I have received from the opencast executive indicates that in both the east and the west of the district and the constituency there is considerable potential. There is a vast area in the eastern section of north-east Derbyshire district—the Pilsley-Morton-Stonebroom complex—and Arkwright was discussed earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because of the closure of the pit and the escape of methane and its terrible effect in the area. That, too, has considerable opencast potential, which could lead to replacement of the closed pit. In the western section, the rural area of Brackenfield would be affected.
In the constituency there are many other areas of high unemployment where mining was once conducted: Killamarsh, near High Moor pit; Renishaw, where the pit is closed; Barrow Hill, which has had considerable industrial development and blight over the years, and was at one time a railway centre; an area south of North Wingfield and Holmewood; and Apperknowle in the Unstone area.
But it is the western section of the constituency, where the Dronfield green belt separates Dronfield from Sheffield and will presumably come to be known as the black belt, which will cause considerable traffic problems.
In a large rural area there are Commonside, Barlow and Cutthorpe, and a region south of the second largest commuter town in the area, Wingerworth. Here, there is considerable extractive potential that could be realised if only there were rail links to move the extracted materials. Of course, even if that were to happen, there would still be serious problems.
Many of the problems centre on the eastern working-class side of the constituency. In the mining areas, the latest pit closure has led to unemployment, social deprivation and serious environmental problems at Renishaw Park. The Eckington parish council is seriously concerned about the lack of consultation and the fact that it is not clear what is to be done with the derelict pit. Despite plans by the district council, for the nearby Westthorpe pit, the same happened. Then there is the combination of a colliery in the Staveley area called Ireland, which merged with Markham in 1986. The Ireland section closed the following year. Since 1981 several closures and mergers have taken place, leaving a very wide area of industrial dereliction. It is an area whose mining history goes back over considerable periods to the time of small drift mines. it is pockmarked with old pit shafts and worked-out seams. There has also been considerable gas


and oil exploration and constituents are seriously worried. Constituents from the Tupton area have petitioned me—125 residents from a very small area. They are worried about the possible use of these areas by Nirex.
The industrial past and the industrial future both produce mining subsidence problems. Homes are people's strongest concern and when they begin to collapse around people's ears there is considerable worry, and when whole areas of farms start to cave in and disappear, there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
I have a considerable list of complaints from the Hartington view, Hillcrest and Frankly drive areas of Stavely and if I had the time I should love to quote them as they illustrate my point better than I can. The people there feel that the board has an off-hand attitude; that they are frustrated in pursuing their claims even by the agents who are supposed to be acting on their behalf and that they get shoddy workmanship from cowboy builders.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is currently a fund that is valued at over £200 million for subsidence damage, which British Coal has the greatest reluctance in paying out to repair the damage to homes throughout all the coalfield areas?

Mr. Barnes: Having more money in funds for people who have suffered from subsidence is of considerable importance. I know that my hon. Friend is interested in that issue, which affects his constituency. Indeed, he has a Bill before the House on coalmining subsidence, entitled the Coal Mining Subsidence (Damage, Arbitration, Prevention and Public Awareness) Bill that would allow arbitration procedures to operate to cover some of these problems.
That problem will affect my constituency in the future. The Markham pit, which is still open, currently operates in the Chesterfield constituency in the Inkersall area and will be moving to the Lowgate area of my constituency. Some of the things that could improve the position would be possible without primary legislation. Plans of advance workings should be made publicly available; local arbitration disputes procedures, which have been promised by the board could be established—that would work well in the Staveley area with the current problems that my constituency faces; and facilities should be established for individuals to more readily be able to use their own contractors and builders. They should not be paid a lump sum by the board to try to get rid of them.
Apart from those problems associated with mining, there are also many non-mining environmental problems. The River Rother, which has the longest stretch of grossly pulluted river in the United Kingdom, passes through many of the areas that I have already discussed, and then goes on to pollute the rivers Don and Humber, and finally the North sea. Coalite, Orgreave coking plant and Staveley Chemicals are the worst offenders and regularly break the law on discharge consents with mercury, cyanide, phenols, oils, grease, suspended solids and ammonia ending up in the river. The last recorded fish in the Rother were there 50 years ago, although at one time it was an area renowned for its great fishing and natural beauty. There is no longer any aquatic vegetation on the river banks or in the river itself. Indeed, the water from the river could not be used when the Rother valley park, which is next to my

constituency, was being established. Water had to be imported to establish an artificial lake. What is required is the full implementation of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the supply of resources to county councils to help them handle the problem.
Derbyshire county council has a good record and has helped Yorkshire Water. Mr. Tim Birch, who is Greenpeace's clean-river campaigner, said:
Derbyshire is the most forward thinking council on Green issues that we have had to deal with.
Derbyshire county council has established itself as one of the country's leading authorities on many aspects of environmental work, through its own initiatives or in conjunction with other agencies. Several of its initiatives have been recognised by outside bodies in awards and prizes, including countryside trails, town restoration projects, design work, country parks and tourist facilities.
Another source of environmental problems is the Leigh Environmental plant at Killamarsh, which is situated close to the northern point of the River Rother. It was fined £1,500 following a fire and explosion at an aerosol recovery plant in 1986. In court, Her Majesty's inspector said:
Here was an accident waiting to happen.
No public inquiry into the plant's operation was held, although I, the parish council and others pressed the Department of the Environment for one. Many complaints have been made about solvent smells and problems associated with the plant. It now has a Berridge incinerator, and under old planning permission this was used at Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, creating considerable nuisance in smells, destruction of plant life and smoke emission.
We need legislation on waste disposal that will allow proper co-ordination of district councils' environmental health work, county councils' licensing and planning responsibilities under the Control of Pollution Act, the role of Her Majesty's inspector of pollution, water authorities' duties to prevent pollution of sewers and the work of health and safety inspectors. If the Government co-ordinate, nothing will be done. Proper co-ordination that is committed to collective responses and participation is needed. This would ensure full consultation with the people affected by developments and could have speeded up successful action recently taken by Her Majesty's inspector of pollution against Biwater Pipes and Castings Ltd. at Clay Cross because of airborne pollution. Airborne pollution affects the River Rother because the muck in the air falls on the ground and is washed into it.
The Dronfield underground fire occurred in a working-class area in the west of my constituency. I gave details of the fire in an Adjournment debate on 5 November 1987. I also mentioned it in my maiden speech, which I made during a previous Consolidated Fund Bill debate. There is a danger that the North-East Derbyshire district council will be left with a bill of at least £600,000 for the abatement of this statutory nuisance, although it does not own the land concerned. Conservative Members have referred to the Bellwin rules, which were applied in the south-east following the gales of 1987. They could be used, for example, to assist North-East Derbyshire district council. The council, which pays a 0·15p rate would then have 75 per cent. of its net expenditure grant aided.
I tried to pursue that issue last week in the context of Northern Ireland appropriation discussions on the Strabane floods, which occurred at about that time. The


provision should be used—and I hope that the Government will get round to using it—in the case of the gale damage that occurred in Scotland on 13 February. It would be nice to know whether there could be an interpretation of the Beltwin rules that would allow them to extend beyond the area of southern gales.
The Dronfield fire illustrates the massive problem facing North East Derbyshire district council. It receives the lowest grant-related expenditure per head of population of any of the nine councils in Derbyshire. On environmental and social problems for 1987–88, for example, it received less than one fifth of the figure for Chesterfield borough, although the two areas integrate considerably. It is eighth in terms of expenditure for the physical features of the area and I think that the Minister would agree, in view of what I have said that there are problems about the physical features of the area because it has been polluted. The council loses out in terms of the people of the area because people have to move out of the area to work and few people come in as visitors because the area has few leisure activities or entertainment facilities.
Under the poll tax, the area's prospects for environmental issues are bleak. The environmental matters that I have raised—opencast mining, mining subsidence, river pollution, airborne pollution, hazardous waste disposal, dereliction and the underground fire—call for collective action and democratic involvement and participation. It is evident that the Government can deliver on those issues only to the extent that they abandon their free enterprise philosophy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on putting to the House some of his constituents' concerns. It also provides me with an opportunity to give an account to the House of some of the steps that the Government are taking, not only in response to the specific interests of his constituency, but on a more general level.
As the hon. Gentleman said, no man, woman or child is an island. We are confronted with various environmental challenges which affect not only the islands of the United Kingdom but affect us globally. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the singularly successful conference on saving the ozone layer which the Government held last week and at which 123 nations were represented, many at ministerial level, working together constructively and realistically to find ways of reducing the threat to the ozone layer. By the end of the conference, the number of countries prepared to become parties to the Montreal protocol had effectively doubled. As the hon. Gentleman said, the citizens of Derbyshire, like those of every other part of the country, are affected by the future of the ozone layer. We face similar environmental challenges in the questions of climate change and the greenhouse gases, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention.
The hon. Gentleman challenged seriously the extent to which a free market economy can properly and effectively deal with pollution control and protect the environment. I want to take the opportunity to challenge that assertion profoundly. Only through economic growth and development can industry produce the technology

necessary to deal with pollution control. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman referred to the record of Eastern Europe and to the fact that the Chernobyl disaster took place at the far end of Europe. Much of the threat of acid rain is generated by the eastern European countries.
The Department has an environmental protection technology scheme which offers support to new radical ideas to help with pollution control—suggestions for reducing emissions from municipal incinerators, for odour control, or for removing heavy metals or organic compounds from industrial waste water. Only last week we announced a further matter of concern for the environmental protection technology scheme—the reduction and removal of chlorofluorocarbons. The challenge for industry is to develop technology that will meet the needs of pollution control and abatement. A very big market is available if industry is prepared to grasp the opportunities.

Ms. Joan Walley: The Minister said that the problems of pollution outlined so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) can be dealt with using market forces. Is the hon. Lady aware that in the recent report on toxic waste by the Select Committee on the Environment Leigh Environmental is quoted as having said:
We have never been run out of any town yet, and as long as we are making some money out of it, we are not going to be run out of Walsall."?
Does the Minister agree that it is not merely a question of having new technology to deal with the pollution problems of the future? We need to regulate and control companies which are concerned only with making money and which are not prepared to invest in an infrastructure, which would clear up the dereliction and contamination that have developed purely because of the failure to have regard to such investment.

Mrs. Bottomley: As I move on, the hon. Lady will realise that I share many of those views. Regulations, licensing, the enforcement of the necessary requirements is a vital part of the Government's role and of waste regulation authorities. I hope to outline in more detail later our proposal for updating our waste disposal laws. I hope that that will bring the hon. Lady confidence on that front.
Let me deal with north-east Derbyshire. The Government are already committed financially to helping with environmental regeneration support. For example in 1988–89, more than £12 million has been allocated for derelict land grant schemes—a further increase on this year's record level of expenditure. Almost £2·6 million will be spent on coalfield dereliction in the east midlands of which more than £1 million will be spent by Derbyshire county council in north-east Derbyshire. That represents concrete financial recognition of the hon. Gentleman's point about the difficulties for his constituency in adjusting to the change in the coal industry. I appreciate and understand the part played by the coal mining industry in the history of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the pollution of the River Rother. In general, our rivers are of a high standard. Over 90 per cent. of the length of our rivers is already of good or fair quality, as compared with an average of only 75 per cent. throughout the European Community. The Thames has 100 different species of fish: even salmon can be caught in it. The Tyne, the Wear and the Tees have all improved greatly in recent years. I am aware, however,


that rivers in north-east Derbyshire and south Yorkshire, including the Rother and the Don, are among the most polluted rivers remaining, with much of their length classified as poor or bad. We are anything but complacent. We are committed to several steps designed to ensure that the remaining pollution black spots are eradicated as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) referred to the importance of regulation and the enforcement of standards. The crucial point of the National Rivers Authority, which will be established as a result of water privatisation, is that, for the first time, the role of poacher and gamekeeper will be separated. There will be no confusion, no compromise, and no difficulty in setting the necessary standards and ensuring that they are properly enforced.

Ms. Walley: I emphasise that, whatever the Minister may have said about rivers, we have seen a deterioration of river quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, there has been grave cause for concern in north-east Derbyshire. I wonder whether, rather than make general points, the Minister will tell the House—if not now, she could write to my hon. Friend—how many applications are being made in north-east Derbyshire for relaxed consents between now and when the water privatisation will come into effect?
Severn-Trent is responding to invitations from the Department of the Environment to submit sewage discharge consents which could be relaxed. The standards that the Minister talks about are not good standards if they have been considerably lowered. It is a matter of when they come into force. We need specific information about how many relaxed consents there will be in north-east Derbyshire.

Mrs. Bottomley: I will come back to the hon. Lady with that specific information. I will probably write to her in due course.
Capital spending by water authorities is at its highest level since 1973. The purpose of the National Rivers Authority is to set and enforce the necessary standards which we all want for our rivers.
There has been concern about pollution in the River Drone. Sewage disposal has been a source of concern.

Mr. Barnes: I had intended to raise this issue. The problem is that a large commuter town has grown up, and the existing sewerage arrangements are obviously inadequate. The River Drone moves through Unstone, and passes schools, and so on. It is often an open sewer. It finds its way into the River Rother.

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed.
Poor quality sewage effluents are recognised as a significant cause of river pollution. Investment in sewage treatment and disposal by water authorities has been steadily rising throughout the 1980s, and it will more than double over the next four years, partly as a result of a major programme at a cost of about £1 billion, which we have announced, aimed at bringing substandard sewage works into full compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992. The programme is complementary to the

existing programmes which water authorities already have in hand for improvements to their works to achieve planned upgrading of rivers.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Staveley chemicals firm. It is important to recognise that badly polluted rivers—often the legacy of the industrial revolution—obviously cannot be cleaned up overnight. Sensible time scales have to be set—which take account of the substantial improvements needed to many plants—to allow sufficient time for the design, construction and commissioning of the work involved. I understand that major discharges to the Rother have the necessary improvements planned. Of course, it will be for the National Rivers Authority to ensure that the improvements are satisfactorily carried out and, if not, that adequate enforcement powers will be available to it.
The Government are strongly committed to improving the quality of our water. Following the second conference on the North sea, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted just over a year ago, several proposals were made by all North sea countries on steps that should be taken to improve the quality of our water and the North sea. We were among the first countries bordering the North sea to come forward with our own red list—the list of especially toxic, persistent substances that are liable to bio-accumulate, that we believe are most damaging to our water and that we hope to see reduced to at least 50 per cent.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Lady is moving beyond the River Rother. Derbyshire county council has been trying to do a great deal in connection with the River Rother and in discussions with the Yorkshire water authority. It was unfortunate that the Yorkshire water authority pulled out of a seminar that was organised between the various interested groups—such as itself, the Clean River Campaign and the Derbyshire county council. In view of the current circumstances and possible developments, it would be fruitful if those discussions and negotiations were re-opened.

Mrs. Bottomley: Obviously, I cannot comment on those particular circumstances. I can only reiterate the basic commitment to our rivers and to our waterways; the crucial part that will be played by the National Rivers Authority, and that in the national context, our rivers are of generally good or fair standard. However, we recognise that the rivers to which the hon. Gentleman referred are ones that require special consideration. I believe that both the investment programme and the framework of legislation and control that we are outlining will make a major contribution to achieving the end that I believe we all agree we want to reach.
It is my understanding that the Leigh group commissioned a chemical incinerator at Killamarsh for the disposal of simple low-chlorine slightly contaminated solvents. I recognise the concern of local residents because of past problems with other plants of that nature. I would point out that the incinerator now operates without problems.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) wrote to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East to explain that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is monitoring the position to ensure that the best practicable means are used to minimise emissions to the air. The plant currently meets


all the European Community emission standards. The fact is that, as in other areas, good practice and the proper respect for pollution requirements must be maintained by all industries.

Mr. Meale: I am interested in what the hon. Lady has said about air pollution. However, she is aware of the changes that the Government are about to make in respect of the air pollution inspectorate, which will make it virtually impossible for inspectors to inspect. Rather they will be confined to industries and to their desks on a regional basis. Will the hon. Lady comment on that?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are preparing legislation that will give statutory backing to an integrated system of pollution control. It is true that in the past the inspectors of hazardous waste, of radioactive substances and of air pollution have all worked rather separately. We have reorganised the pollution inspectorate to establish an integrated model. We have no doubt that that is the most effective way in which to organise the pollution inspectors, because inevitably the pollution of the air, of the land and of the water are closely related. We have no doubt that it will lead to a more effective system of pollution control.

Mr. Meale: I can understand that the inspectorate will become more efficient if it is placed on an industrial basis, but will the Minister explain how that will make it more effective? That new base will be double the size of the regions that it once covered and, at the same time, the link with local authorities will be broken. They will no longer be able to notify the inspectorate on an area basis—a much smaller basis—which guaranteed a much quicker response. Because of the size of the new area to be covered, the inspectors will be confined to their desks, so how will the change make the inspectorate more effective?

Mrs. Bottomley: The most effective way in which to achieve the goal that the hon. Gentleman and I share is a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman advances the small is beautiful argument, but we believe that the most effective way in which to deploy Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is to integrate that inspectorate and for it to work on a regional basis. Obviously there will be an opportunity to debate this further when we come forward with our green Bill which provides the statutory backing for it.
By having an integrated inspectorate it will be much more effective in regulating industrial processes that cross some industrial boundaries. Therefore, a particular industry will not be faced with an inspector from a different, unrelated sector of the inspectorate. I believe that that is a convincing argument for such an integrated inspectorate. I would welcome the opportunity for a full-blown debate on integrated pollution control and perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will put in for a debate on that subject on another occasion.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East mentioned the Coalite works and he may know that its operations have been systematically monitored by HMIP and by inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive. Its waste is of concern to the county council as a waste disposal authority and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a full framework of control over Coalite's operations. The new system of integrated pollution control

will strengthen the position and provide a cross-media approach, which will ensure that the environment receives new and further protection.
I am aware that Renishaw Park pit is due to be closed by British Coal at the end of the month. The colliery site lies within the approved north-east Derbyshire green belt. I understand that Derbyshire county council is keen to acquire the land following closure to implement a derelict land grant-aided scheme to reclaim the site for soft—after uses compatible with green belt policy—whether that means agricultural, forestry or recreational use or use as an open space—which would also secure significant environmental improvement.
The future ownership of the site is a matter for negotiation between British Coal and any interested parties. If, as a result of such negotiations, the county council were able to secure an agreement in principle to acquire the site, the Department's regional office at Nottingham is, as always, willing to consider with the county council the prospects for grant aid.

Mr. Barnes: Renishaw Park pit had a good seam that was worked and which, at one time, extended its life beyond what British Coal wanted. Surely it is worrying that opencast mines are next to that pit. Therefore the same coal that was once collected from what was virtually a drift mine will be collected by opencast techniques. It is not just the jobs at the pit that will go, but other jobs that served the pit community. The prosperity created by those wages will also go.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of opencast coal on the environment. There is no Government target for coal production or opencast output. We believe that that is a matter for the market. It is for the industry to decide the level of opencast output for which it wants to aim in any period, but it is for the mineral planning authorities initially. and ultimately for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—if the case comes before him on appeal, or on call-in—to determine the acceptability of specific projects, having regard to the benefit of opencast coal and the proposal itself, the environmental and other material considerations relating to the specific site.
The Government recognise that, although mineral workings are temporary uses of land, they can have a serious impact on the environment. At the same time, minerals are essential for the economy and can be worked only where they occur. It is the job of the planning system to balance the need for the minerals against environmental and other factors. Our aim is to encourage a positive and constructive approach by the industry and the mineral planning authorities, to ensure that this important resource is extracted in an environmentally sensitive way.
Imports through Humberside are another source of concern to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The Government have no plans to ban coal imports from whatever source. The CEGB and the SSEB are already free to import coal if they choose. Private generators will retain this freedom. Coal is likely to remain the primary source of our electricity supply industry for many years, regardless of whether the industry is public or private.
British Coal must be the supplier of choice, not of necessity or compulsion. Its share of the market will and should depend on its ability to improve its efficiency and to provide reliable supplies of competitively priced coal. Pit


closures, although extremely stressful for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East and people in the affected constituency, are a matter for British Coal to decide, after careful reviews of individual pits. Current closures are not due to privatisation; they would have happened anyway as part of the continuing restructuring of the industry—

Mr. Meale: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady's views on the effect that pit closures will have on communities. Does she recall that a few years ago the area that I represent stood firmly by the Government during the miners' strike and kept on producing, with a promise of a great future? Since then, the area has sustained closure after closure. Because of lack of Government action and because of the Associated British Ports (No.2) Bill which will shortly be passed, a possible further 12 of the remaining 18 pits in Nottinghamshire will close. Does the Minister think that the Government should honour the promises given at that time?

Mrs. Bottomley: We believe that one of the reasons for the overall economic strength of this country is that we have not been prepared to make arbitrary and artificial decisions, or sought to ensure the maintenance of many industries as a form of social or community security. I said that I understood that the closure of a pit was stressful. Any community that has traditionally relied on a particular industry for its support will inevitably undergo stress during a time of transition, but it would be wrong for the Government to try to counteract the market.
We recognise some of the difficulties involved. That is why I stressed the sizable amounts of derelict land grant which are provided for circumstances such as this—

Mr. Meale: Does the hon. Lady recall what the Government did during the miners' strike? What has changed since then?

Mr. Barnes: One area in which the derelict land legislation moneys were never used and in which great pressure was exerted by the North-East Derbyshire district council to persuade the Department of the Environment to use such provision is in connection with the Dronfield underground fire. Having failed on that, we are now trying the Bellwin scheme as an avenue for provision. There is a great problem in the area, not just because of the closure of the pits. The decline of the railways has meant that areas such as Barrow Hill have been affected. The decline in the steel industry means that people moving into the Sheffield and Rotherham area to work have been affected. Also, there was a great deal of traditional iron malleable foundry work there. There are great problems, which reinforce each other and mean that when employment improves a little in the western part of the constituency the situation in the east worsens.

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall try to confine myself to the aspects of this question which concern my ministerial responsibilities rather than re-opening the debate on the miners' dispute, which most of us feel is well and truly behind us. I understand that there are hon. Gentlemen who want to re-fight old battles, but I do not wish to follow them down that track.
The Government recognise many of the needs of Derbyshire, which is why this year grant is rising by £23

million, so that it will receive a total of £148·6 million as its entitlement, quite apart from the amounts produced by derelict land grant and other sources of income.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Dronfield underground fire and I admire his campaign to try to use the Bellwin rules to meet this need, but the fact is that they are simply not appropriate to those circumstances. No Government assistance, as he knows, could be made available to meet the cost of putting out the fire. The court judgment recognised that the financial responsibility lay with the owners and occupier of the site, and the council should press ahead as hard as it can with efforts to recover the cost of the works that have been done.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to his concerns about subsidence at Staveley. The day-to-day management of the subsidence repair and compensation system is the responsibility of British Coal. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman said, that he has had discussions with British Coal, both locally and nationally, and I understand that 60 per cent. of the claims in the Hartington estate have now been resolved. Decisions on coal mining subsidence legislation will be taken in due course, after careful consideration of all the comments received on the Government's consultation paper, issued last year, and legislation will be introduced when the parliamentary timetable permits.
The hon. Gentleman also made reference to questions of air pollution, particularly in relation to Biwaters. Air pollution from industrial processes, which is the most difficult to control, is the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and we touched on its work earlier in our debate. The processes scheduled for air pollution control may not be started until they have received inspectorate approval, and the inspectorate will not issue such approval until it is satisfied that the best practical means have been used to prevent atmospheric emissions from the processes, and that any emissions that cannot be prevented are made harmless and inoffensive.
The inspectorate undertakes regular inspections and requires pollution controls to be tightened as and when appropriate. The prior approval approach has been broadly endorsed in a European Community directive on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants. We intend to extend this system of prior approval to a second tier of industrial processes under the control of local authorities. A consultation paper seeking views on the new processes to be scheduled was published in December 1988. As a first step, regulations were laid last Thursday, adding to the number of processes scheduled for control by the inspectorate. The regulations also require applications to be made available for public comment and approvals to be placed on a public register. I hope that that will meet with approval from hon. Members.
We also recognise that pollution control cannot be compartmentalised into air, water and waste. The consultation paper which the Government issued in July 1988 proposed a system of integrated pollution control for certain types of industrial processes which discharge significant quantities of harmful waste, including all processes currently scheduled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution from the point of view of air pollution. When we have had the opportunity to bring forward legislation to provide the necessary backing for the integrated pollution inspectorate, we shall once again be leaders in that important area.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to the extraction of limestone. The extraction of limestone is a case study of the ramifications of pollution control. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will be aware that, with the £1 to £2 billion gas desulphurisation programme, to which we agreed, and the large combustion plant directive from the EEC to reduce the effects of acid rain, we have embarked on a major programme. The Drax programme will be the largest gas desulphurisation programme in the Community while our overall programme is the second largest.
Our programme requires a great deal of limestone and it is an example of how one form of pollution control and abatement has effects in other areas of the community. I am aware of the environmental problems arising from quarrying at Milltown and Ashover and of the impact of heavy goods traffic serving the quarry. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will appreciate that transport matters do not concern me.

Mr. Barnes: The only problem with limestone extraction at Milltown, which the Minister has justified as being used for socially useful purposes, is that it is not part of the planning agreement. The planning agreement refers to the thin streams of fluorspar and other minerals in the limestone.

Mrs. Bottomley: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments further. However, I understand that Derbyshire county council has been the minerals planning authority and the highway authority and is considering whether the current mining operations contravene the planning permission for mineral extraction under which the quarry operates and if so whether enforcement would be appropriate. As any enforcement may lead to an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the situation at present.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East also referred to the use of nuclear power. The Government believe that a balance of fuels is necessary and it would be unwise to rule nuclear fuel out altogether. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's view and his particular constituency interest, the fact is that nuclear energy does not produce carbon dioxide which is the most prevalent greenhouse effect gas. Neither does it produce acid rain and in some cases it can he argued that it is particularly environmentally sensitive.
The transport of all radioactive material in the United Kingdom is subject to stringent internationally agreed standards laid down by the International Atomic Agency. Those standards prescribe that safety is built in to any package design for the carriage of radioactive materials by whatever mode of transport so that even in the case of a severe accident in transport there would be no significant radiological hazard to the public, workers or staff of the emergency services. Long-standing and frequently rehearsed plans are in place to respond to any incident, on any scale, in any location.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has outlined a number of environmental concerns in his constituency. They are all subjects to which the Government are giving detailed consideration. We hope to bring forward proposals for legislation to update our waste disposal laws. Derbyshire county council, as the waste disposal authority, has a particular responsibility for

licensing, regulation and enforcement of proper waste management standards. We hope also to bring forward proposals to strengthen air pollution controls and to give statutory backing to the integrated system of pollution control.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said that no man, woman or child is an island. That is very much the Government's view, whether combating threats to the environment on a global, national or local level. It may be that the many citizens of Derbyshire will think that they would get better value for money and better services for the rates—soon, the community charge—that they pay if Derbyshire decided, instead of being a nuclear-free zone, to turn itself into a litter-free zone.

Ms. Joan Walley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on setting out so clearly the environmental problems confronting his constituents. North-east Derbyshire is not an island, and many areas in the north face precisely the same problems. Whatever the Minister may say, when my hon. Friend returns to his constituency tomorrow morning the fire will still be raging underground. As the Minister said, there is no clear way of finding Government money to deal with such an environmental disaster.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Without a Government commitment to provide the necessary finance and resources, the problems caused by opencast coal mining, derelict land and British Coal will continue. As to the ozone layer, I should have liked to hear the Minister say that the Government will be as involved in developments in The Hague as they were in their own conference last weekend. There is a strong case for a ban on CFC production, and the Government must develop a clear programme for dealing with that aspect.
As for Leigh Environmental, I have made it clear that there is grave concern about the way in which that company operates in the west midlands, and it seems that concern is shared in north-east Derbyshire. How many sites and operations does the company own? I understand that it has been buying up haulage businesses and landfill sites at an alarming rate. If the state of the company's operations is as bad as we have heard, we need to know whether it is in a position to carry out the waste management functions for which it has responsibility without risk to the environment.
On the inspectorate of pollution, the Government's attitude to integrated pollution control would be easier to understand if it included proposals for water. Instead, water is to be dealt with separately. We welcome the National Rivers Authority, but why cannot water be part of an integrated pollution control programme?
With regard to local authorities, it is regrettable that the Minister attacked Derbyshire county council for being a nuclear-free zone. It is clear from my hon. Friend's comments that Derbyshire is dealing with environmental issues as well as it can, given the Government's financial restrictions. Will there be a rolling programme in respect of derelict land, and so on? Will Derbyshire county council and other local authorities trying to deal with the legacy of


derelict land be able to progress confidently in the knowledge that there will be a rolling programme, or will there only be one-off grants?
I was concerned when the Minister said that there was no Government target for opencast coal mining. I do not believe that this can be left to the industry. All over the country great wounds are opening up where opencast mining is being established, simply because it is cheaper to get coal out of the ground in that way than to do it through more traditional deep-pit mining methods. Considerable environmental hazards may result, which should be a matter of concern to a Government who profess to care so much about the environment. I should like to see a greatly reduced target. Left to market forces, British Coal is creating huge environmental problems all over the country.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady confirm that she appreciated the point that it is for the planning system to balance mineral considerations against environmental and other factors? Environmental considerations are certainly regarded, but at the planning stage.

Ms. Walley: I only wish that that were so, and that a series of planning decisions made by local authorities had not been overruled by the Secretary of State. If we could leave it to local authorities to act through the planning procedure without the iron fist of the Secretary of State interfering, fewer planning decisions on opencast coal mining would be overturned.
We are worried about compartmentalism. We were told earlier that transport was a matter for the Department of Transport, which suggests that unless a joint initiative can be taken embracing all Government Departments from Transport to Energy—if we continue to compartmentalise every problem of environmental protection without looking at the whole in an integrated way—we shall continue to experience all the problems that have been so clearly described.
I wish that our discussion on north-east Derbyshire could be taken up by every hon. Member to allow close scrutiny of environmental issues, and that instead of a lot of talk about integrated pollution control we could have a Government committed to acting in a genuinely integrated way and to ensuring that resources are available to local authorities, which know best how to deal with the problems.

Orders of the Day — Trident

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I admit that when I found that I was 12th on the list of speakers and that there were 18 hours of debate in front of me I did not expect to speak at all. I am delighted to be able to raise the issue and to try to press the Government for some answers.
I do not wish to talk about the morality of Trident, or even about its current costs. I want to return to the issue that I raised in the Royal Navy debate—it has, I believe, been raised on other occasions as well—namely, the question of its credibility and efficiency.
I understand that, while reviewing Labour party policy on nuclear weapons my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have been reluctant to become involved in the general debate. I feel, however, that if they paid more attention to the question of the system's credibility and its command and control that would be very useful. If evidence were drawn up of how many questions about that have not been answered, it would help the country to develop a logical policy to get rid of nuclear weapons.
Let me deal first with the insult that the Minister uttered in the Navy debate. It was not the sort of thing that he would have said on reflection, although I realise that he was stung into it as a result of an intervention. On 28 February, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
Yes, I have deliberately dodged the question of command and control of Trident. In repeated answers to the hon. Gentleman I have told him that this is classified information. We do not intend to reveal to him how we communicate with our submarines or how we intend to do so in the future. That information would be of enormous use to the Soviet Union."—[Official Report, 28 February 1989; Vol. 148 c. 249.]
That is absolute rubbish. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union can find out how we communicate with our submarines. It is perfectly easy to put together a great deal of information from published material in Britain, without having to examine material published in the United States and elsewhere.
If the Government are out to deceive anyone, it is not the Soviet Union, it is the British public. They do not want a proper debate about the credibility of Trident because they believe that if the information were made available, the British public would see through the Trident farce. I am not seeking to get the information for which I asked because I have no desire to damage our national security, although I see no way in which our national security would be damaged if any of the questions I have tabled or points I raised in the Navy debate were answered. But I repeat to the House that I am not in the business of damaging national security. I am interested in the House of Commons having effective control over the Executive.
The system has no credibility, so the Government are covering it up. It is a case of the Emperor's new clothes. For our deterrent to be credible we have to establish clearly to any agressor that it is independent, that we have proper command and control over it and that we are in a position to use it. The United States clearly understands that that has to be established and that there has to be a proper debate about command and control. Most of the questions that I have asked the Government have been asked in the United States and answered. In the United States there is a clear public debate about the form of its


weapon control systems. Even in France, which is traditionally a secretive country the TACAMO-type system that controls their submarines is discussed.
The United Kingdom Government has a history of avoiding political debate in the guise of secrecy. The number of statements that have been released when Cabinet papers have become available which have nothing to do with the technical details of defence systems but have much more to do with political systems is amazing. We have Macmillan's views on nuclear weapons and we have the way in which the Chevaline programme was pushed through with no report or accountability to Parliament. We have the quote from Robert MacNamara that I mentioned in the Navy debate, when he attended NATO meetings in 1962 and questioned the credibility of the British nuclear deterrent. That information was not released in the United States until 1979–17 years after the statement was made—and as far as I am aware, it has not been revealed in Britain.
The Government have a tremendous desire to avoid a proper debate about nuclear weapons systems. Even when the Prime Minister is challenged about Trident, she brushes aside the question of its credibility and effectiveness with the bland statement that for 40 years nuclear weapons have kept the peace in Europe. There is never any mention of the British independent deterrent contributing to that.
I want to return to the key questions that should be answered. Have the Government really worked out what can be done about the effects of electromagnetic pulses? What happens if a nuclear bomb is exploded at high altitude? Will such an explosion effect almost all our radio communications systems? As far as I know there is not one shred of evidence in Britain that low frequency, medium frequency, high frequency or ultra-high frequency radio transmitters in the United Kingdom are not vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse. All the evidence is that communications will be virtually impossible by any of the traditional radio methods with submarines or elsewhere. When we turn to the RAF and its reports, it openly admits that there would be a major problem with communications if such a nuclear weapon was ever exploded.
When we come to the Navy and the command and control of submarines, the Government are not prepared to discuss the problem. Perhaps it is because of the second key question—whether there is an inherent problem with submarines as a base for deterrent weapons. If there are to be easy communications with submarines, they are extremely vulnerable. If the submarines are to be made as safe as possible from enemy attack, they can be hidden away on the ocean floor, but if that happens, communication with them will be very difficult. Submarines might be reasonable as a first strike force, but if they are to be a deterrent, and if the Prime Minister, the Government and the nation are committed to not using them as a first strike but only in retaliation, the Government have to deal with the question how they can get political command for the weapons to be fired in retaliation when it is likely that the communications system will have been destroyed by the first strike.
I question the Minister on the logic behind the decision to develop experimental low frequency transmitters at Glengarry forest near Invergarry in Scotland. Is that recognition that the existing system of command and control would not work? If that is not the reason for it, why are these transmitters to be built? As I understand it,

work on the experimental transmitters is planned to start in 1991–92, if planning permission is given, and would be completed by about 1994. The Minister ought to be able to tell us how much the experimental transmitters will cost, whether they will be operationally effective systems, or whether there will be merely an experimental transmitter which will have to be replaced later by an operational system.
What information will be given to the planning inquiry? If there is to be an effective planning inquiry the people will want to know about cost, use and efficiency, and whether there are likely to be adverse effects from the extremely low radio transmitter. If it is only an experiment, and if it is decided later that the experiment has been successful and that a larger station will be built, the people will want to know whether it will be built on the same site and whether the initial planning permission will pre-empt the decision about a larger system being built in future.
We should also be told by the Government whether there are alternatives to extremely low frequency transmitters, whether the Government are investigating a form of laser system and what the cost of that might be.
The Government have also to answer the question I posed in the Navy debate about what we have as an early warning system. We understood in the past that Fylingdales early warning system, installed basically by the United States, was supposed to share information with Britain. As I understand it, the United States is spending most on updating that radar system. The Government should tell the House whether there is a clear understanding that the early warning system will be shared with the United Kingdom Government, particularly if we wanted to use our deterrent independently of the United States.
The Government should also tell us why they have committed themselves so firmly not to go for a TACA MO system of communication, where there is a trailing wire from an aeroplane which acts as a transmitter to communicate with submarines. The French seem to believe that if they are to have command and control it is absolutely essential that they have this system, but all the information I can find suggests that the British Government do not seem to be prepared to use it.
The other question that we have to ask is whether the British Government are not really avoiding all the costs of a command and control system by simply relying on the United States for its communications system. If that is what is going on, we have no credibility as a nation with an independent deterrent. I can understand how the Minister, for political reasons, would want to avoid letting the House know that we have to rely on the Americans for our communications system, but it is a matter that should be in the public domain.
There has been considerable speculation in the newspapers, particularly an article in the New Statesman, that our whole programme for the development of warheads for the Trident is a very long way behind and that, possibly, there is not sufficient material for their manufacture. The Government ought to make the position clear. If they want their deterrent to have any credibility, it is in their interests to tell people that they have an efficient system. The only reason for hiding behind secrecy would be knowledge of a major problem in the production of the warheads. If there is such a problem, it puts in doubt the £10 million that is being spent.
I want to deal briefly with the question whether the system will be independent. What contingency plans do the Government have? When I last put that question, it was dodged. If, as we all hope, the negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States succeed, if the levels of nuclear weapons are reduced, and especially if any deal results in the elimination of the United States Trident system, what will happen to Britain, which is so dependent on the United States for the supply and servicing of its system? Is there an absolute guarantee that if the United States abandons its own production and servicing lines, our costs will not change dramatically?
Since the Government believe very firmly in multilateral disarmament, they should tell us how they intend to get Trident into any negotiations that are going on. The system is supposed to have a life that will take it up to the year 2015 at least. It seems to me that the Government ought to have a clear strategy if they want people to believe that they are really committed to multilateral disarmament. I understand their wanting to keep the fiction that by 1994 or 1995 there will be a fully operational Trident deterrent system in place and that it will not cost any extra, but they will have to answer the questions that have been posed in this debate if they are to continue to make that claim.
It is absolutely clear that Trident is a total waste of time unless it can be used as a deterrent. I am very relieved that the Prime Minister has made it clear that even she would not consider using it as a first strike weapon, that it is intended purely as a retaliatory system. But it can have credibility as a retaliatory system only if there is effective political command and control—if the Government can decide to fire, rather than leave that decision to an individual commander who is unable to communicate with anyone.
If one looks closely at published American, French and NATO information, and even at available Soviet information, one gets the impression that there are major problems with command and control of a submarine-based system. The only excuse for the Minister not answering these questions is that he knows that we do not have an efficient independent command and control system and he wants to keep a vestige of credibility by hiding behind a veil of secrecy.
I am deliberately not taking much time today because these points have been put to the Minister previously, and this time I should like to hear some answers.

Mr. James Hill: The timing of this debate is about right—certainly for myself, because I had the pleasure of being a member of a delegation on the scientific, technological and aerospace committee of the Western European Union, which was with General Dynamics in San Diego last Friday. During the question and answer session that always takes place, and realising that we were not a highly classified committee—in other words, some members of the committee were of the far Left, especially among the European members—it was impossible to get across the type of detail that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would wish because when he discusses the credibility of the whole system, the command-control and the information that a

commander-in-chief would need during a crisis or emergency, he moves into a highly classified area. He has probably not realised that fibre optics are almost old hat now and that we now use a system of photonics with a laser controlling vast data banks, which could be used by the commander-in-chief.
One question that arose was whether the Trident programme had slipped. One always imagines that there is slippage in these vast programmes. However, we were told firmly by several vice-presidents of the company that the Trident programme was not only on time but, if anything, a little ahead of time. Such facts need to be raised.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the sum of £10 billion, but if he looks at page 10 of the Defence Estimates for 1987–88, he will see that in the submarine section, annual expenditure is more in the region of £431 million per annum. That puts the sum more in context than to keep on saying, parrot-like, over many years, "£10 billion; £10 billion; £10 billion."

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Hill: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman by all means, but I am elaborating my case at the moment.
I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement was being deliberately rude, and no insult was intended, when he said that he could not give classified information to the House of Commons. It is only sensible to say that as Hansard is printed, and what is spoken about here is available for everybody to read the next day. I am fully behind my hon. Friend in restricting a certain amount of information because of its classification. I do not think that my Government would, at any time, set out to deceive the British public. On the point of whether the Trident system will be fully independent, I am fully assured that it will be so.

Mr. Bennett: While the hon. Gentleman is on the question of the cost of £10 billion, how much in that costing figure is for a communication system or is an existing communication system to be used, thus involving no cost?

Mr. Hill: A communication programme would be an additional cost, and an anti-satellite programme would have to be costed. We receive many of our communications from satellites, and the cost of ensuring that they could operate and be properly protected would have to be taken into account. I do not know whether, when the Trident contract was signed, communications such as photonics were foreseen. I am unaware of the cost of it, information which again I am sure is classified, as my hon. Friend the Minister will make clear when he replies to the debate.
If anything, we are too mealy-mouthed about our underwater defence fleet. Reading through official documents, one becomes aware of how well defence contractors in the north and in Scotland do from the defence industry. Vickers, which is involved in the Trident programme, Yarrow, Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft, which builds minesweepers, regard Navy contracts almost as their whole livelihoods.
We could be more adventurous in our spending on the underwater fleet. Currently, we anticipate that the cost of the type 2400 Upholder will be £550 million. We are almost getting our defence programme on the cheap. We


are all concerned that the Navy should be able to defend us in times of emergency. Although the Prime Minister has said that Trident will not be a first-strike weapon, we must be assured that its use will not be so neutral that it will lose its effectiveness.
The number of personnel for the submarine fleet is minute. In 1982–83 it was 2,900, but in 1988–89 it is 3,000, which is not a tremendous increase. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is fully aware of the need to make savings, but to make them in the submarine fleet would be short-sighted.
We had an interesting debate at General Dynamics about cruise and Tomahawk missiles, part of the INF treaty, being returned to the Lindberg field, where they are being dismantled. Russian verification observers have paid two visits, which went smoothly. The scrapping of those nuclear weapons shows the faith that the United States and its allies have in the INF treaty. There is a further need for a chemical warfare treaty and a conventional arms treaty. Gorbachev has made magnificent offers to reduce the numbers of tanks, but Russia's present tank capability would be extremely frightening in a European war.
Those are the problems that we shall meet in the future. We should not let down our guard at any time. I am sure that Mr. Gorbachev will be in power for many years and will succeed in his almost revolutionary changes in policy. But it would be as well for the United Kingdom Government to realise that politics in the USSR are unpredictable—almost as unpredictable as politics in South Africa. If we allow ourselves to be lulled into a state in which we think, "This is going our way", we may be caught out without the defence programme that we need.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on obtaining an opportunity to raise an important topic, which he has raised several times in the House. He has argued his case forcefully and as he produces increasing evidence about the command control and communications system, he seems to receive increasingly less from Ministers. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity while it is quiet, with few hon. Members present, to answer in detail some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend not only this morning, but a couple of weeks ago, when we had a debate on the Navy. I want to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend this morning in the hope that receiving a double dose may encourage the Minister more.
There are two important questions ahout the Trident command control and communications system. The first is whether it is independent and the second is whether it could survive survive a nuclear attack. The arguments over whether Trident has a fully independent command control and communications system are complex. Needless to say, it is impossible to prove the case that we are dependent on the United States for communicating with our missile-carrying submarines with the information that is currently in the public domain. I rely on Hansard of 23 May 1988, columns 37 and 38, in which my hon. Friend tabled a series of questions on a series of topics. To say that the answers were thin, negative and dismissive understates the responses he received.
There are various methods of communicating with submarines. It is not certain that they all depend on the use

of United States equipment or United States communications channels. Another, even more complicated problem, is whether the Trident command control and communications system can survive a nuclear attack. It is certainly hard to imagine how our Trident communications system could escape heavy damage in a nuclear attack. It is also hard to imagine that anyone would be left to issue orders to our Trident submarines after a full-scale attack. Given the amount of information in the public domain, it is impossible to be certain that communications would not break down completely. We have little information about what back-up systems could be used in a war.
The procurement of Trident is an area of extreme sensitivity for this Government. They devote an increasingly large amount of the defence budget to this programme and put considerable time and effort into monitoring its progress. Taking inflation into account, the Government have managed so far to keep costs within the estimates given in 1982 and that is mainly for two reasons, which appear in table II of the third report of the Select Committee on Defence—HC 422, 1987–88. The first is the decision to use missiles from the American stock in King's bay, Georgia. That saved about £770 million in maintenance costs for the missiles. The other cause is the considerable reduction in the amount of expenditure by the United States—partly as a result of exchange rate variations and partly because of savings in the United States missile programme.
Therefore, the only significant way in which the Government have reduced the cost of the Trident programme is by sacrificing our supposed independence by hiring the missiles from the United States. Instead of claiming credit for savings that have nothing to do with them, the Government should be examining their record much more closely.
The Government have had significant problems in the capital works programmes at Aldermaston and Burghfield. In 1980, when the plan was to purchase the C4 missile the Ministry of Defence had hoped to have the A90 production complex in use by 1986, but it is now planned to get it into use by 1992—a delay of six years. That was fully considered by the Select Committee, which pontificated on the reasons for the number of delays.
The Government claim that there will be no delay in the in-service date of 1994 as a result of the problem because they will continue to use the old facility to produce missile components. It is self-evident, therefore, that the old facilities will have to continue in use for much longer than was originaly planned and presumably that will increase the risk of breakdown.
There has been a significant lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the Trident programme. A Ministry of Defence report on the Trident programme dated 11 March 1986—page 163, HC 399, Session 1985–86—said that the construction programme continued to make "satisfactory progress". That is a somewhat odd use of English given that in November 1985 the Ministry of Defence hired a seven-man audit team from British Nuclear Fuels plc because of the concern about slippage in the programme. We ascertained that from a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said:
The BNFL programme audit reviewed four major projects and was carried out by a seven-man team, representing 218 man days' effort. It is not the practice to


reveal the details of individual contract costs for reasons of commercial confidentiality."—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 158.]
Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Eight meetings were held between the team and the Ministry of Defence between 20 November and 18 December 1985. We ascertained that in a written answer of 18 January 1989 at column 199 of Hansard, also in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan. If the programme was making satisfactory progress, why did the Government devote so much time and money to the audit? How many more procurement programmes in the Ministry of Defence budget that we are told are making satisfactory progress have had to have outside teams of experts brought in because of concern about slippage? If the Ministry of Defence is concerned about slippage in procurement programmes, it should tell Parliament before it brings experts in to sort the matter out.
Finally, I come to the question of threat. I referred in the Royal Navy debate to the lack of arms control at sea. Nothing that was said by any Minister or any Conservative Member suggested that there should be naval arms control. Opposition Members think that such talks are essential and urgent.
We have seen a reduction in Soviet naval activity. I am not saying that, at this moment, Soviet procurement has been affected. There is no doubt that the Soviets are continuing to build large numbers of submarines—maybe eight or more a year. Nevertheless, they have made positive moves, mainly in pulling back their ships and submarines. In The Observer of 5 March 1989 there was an article by Ian Mather about the withdrawal of Soviet nuclear missile submarines from waters close to Europe and the United States. Obviously, if they are in an aggressive or threatening position, they pull them back. Mather said:
The decision stems from Gorbachev's defence doctrine of `reasonable sufficiency', which has produced other important Soviet arms control initiatives, according to Western intelligence sources.
I only hope that the phrase "reasonable sufficiency" is taken on board by the Government.
Another important article was by John Keegan, the defence editor of the Daily Telegraph. I presume that the Minister has read it or even leaked some of the information contained in it. Keegan states:
There has been a 'distinct reduction' of deployments of submarines and surface ships outside the Soviet navy's home areas in the Baltic and Barents seas during the Gorbachev era.
He went on.
The Royal Navy is puzzled to explain the reason.
No doubt, the Minister will have good reason to explain that statement. I shall take another couple of minutes, so that he has ample time to consider the matters, particularly those which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish.
Admiral Crowe, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, referring to the Soviet navy, is quoted in the International Herald Tribune as saying:
There is no question that we have seen fewer forward naval deployments.
The hawkish interpretation of the changes is that the main cause for the fall is that the increased range of Soviet

submarine-launched ballistic missiles means that Soviet submarines no longer need to be deployed as far forward as they were.
It concerns me that, although the Soviets are making important soundings in an effort to reduce tension—this debate is about sea matters—the Government seem to regard all of Gorbachev's statements in a cynical way. Obviously, one must question and probe what is going on. In a series of speeches since he came to power, Gorbachev has made it absolutely clear that he wants talks, reductions and unilateral and asymmetrical activity. In many instances, he has done what he said he would do. I hope that that the Government will take seriously some of the things that have been said in the Soviet Union and that we can make appropriate reductions in the NATO Alliance, along the lines of what the Warsaw pact countries are doing.
The one thing that is absolutely clear is that the Government are out of step with everybody else. Throughout the world there is no doubt that the present mood is to make the world a safer place by force reductions and less aggressive postures. Only this Government are wanting to be more and more out of step. Even in Europe the Prime Minister is out of step with other Governments in wanting more modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.
It appears to the Opposition that the Government are hell-bent on continuously increasing the amount, the quantity and the quality of nuclear weapons. The Opposition want to see a worldwide reduction of those horrific weapons.
I shall end with a quotation that shows just how far the Prime Minister is out of step. It is from the International Herald Tribune. It says:
'Things have begun to move in Europe.' Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany told an economic conference in Davos, Switzerland, two weeks ago. 'Europe's future is openness. Europe must find its peaceful order. Anyone who adheres to out-dated hostile preconceptions,' he said, 'is opposing the tide of history.'
That is exactly what the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence procurement are trying to do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We can all agree that Trident is a subject that is frequently debated in the House and is also the subject of numerous questions. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) certainly plays his part in ensuring that the subject appears often on the Order Paper. It is rather odd in those circumstances for the Opposition to suggest that the whole programme is subject to some veil of secrecy and that nobody knows anything about it. Compared to Warsaw pact nuclear programmes, I am sure that Trident is most exhaustively discussed. Indeed, when one reflects on the need, in the national interest, to have secrecy, I certainly feel that the Labour Governments have not been perhaps as forthcoming as this Government about nuclear matters.
I am sure that most of those hon. Members who reflect seriously on the matter must appreciate that there are a number of matters in the defence world—not just nuclear—that must remain classified. If they were discussed at length in the House, they would be recorded in Hansard, and Hansard is widely available. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) clearly


appreciates that point. It inevitably must mean that Defence Ministers and others must be limited sometimes in their answers to questions. I should have thought that that was something that could be appreciated and supported by anybody who really had defence interests at heart.
Every British Government of both political persuasions have thought it right to maintain an independent strategic nuclear deterrent and also to keep under security classification a large number of aspects of that programme. That policy has consistently received the support of the British people and obviously continues to do so today.
Before turning to the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and others, I shall put Trident in the broader perspective. In comparison with the strategic arsenals of the super-powers, the British deterrent is small, but the damage that it can inflict in absolute terms is immense. Indeed, to be effective as a deterrent—the hon. Gentleman was asking if it was effective—it must be capable of inflicting damage on the Soviet Union that would be clearly unacceptable to its leadership.
Deterrence is a matter of perception—perception by the other side and not by us. The United States' commitment to the defence of Europe is clear, but for the United States to use its nuclear weapons in the defence of Europe would be a momentous decision. It is not impossible that at some time circumstances might prevail that would lead the Soviet Union to imagine that it could attack Britain or Europe without risking a nuclear exchange with the United States.
The independent control we retain over our deterrent and the fact that we are prepared to use it in defence of national as well as NATO security, goes to the very heart of why the commitment of our nuclear forces to NATO is so valuable. It creates a second centre of nuclear decision-making within the Alliance. That complicates the Soviet ability to judge the likely response to any attack on NATO in Europe and thereby reduces the chances of such attack.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister therefore realise that it is absolutely essential that he demonstrates to the Soviet Union that we have got independent command and control? If we rely on the United States for that command and control, as an awful lot of people suspect, we do not have an independent deterrent. If the United States is not prepared to use its own sytem neither would it be likely to allow us to use ours.

Mr. Sainsbury: If I demonstrated that independence by explaining exactly how everything worked and thus gave the Soviet Union the maximum opportunity to ensure that it did not work, that would seriously damage the credibility of the deterrent. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is unable to appreciate that point. It is an independent deterrent.
We chose Trident to replace Polaris because we judged it against our requirement to have a credible independent deterrent in the mid-1990s and beyond. We wanted to find the minimum force which fulfilled our defence criteria and which was, at the same time, affordable. Trident represents that minimum and affordable force. It meets the criteria for effective deterrent.
In the Government's judgment those criteria are, first, that the force must have the power to inflict a level of

damage which is unacceptable to the Soviet Union; second, it must possess sufficient capability to convince Soviet leaders that, notwithstanding defensive or other measures, its weapons will reach their target. Trident will meet those criteria, no more, no less.
Trident, like Polaris, will be a four-boat force; a force this size is the minimum which will be required to guarantee that one boat is on patrol at all times—as we have maintained with our Polaris force—and that is essential to credibility.
Trident will be a minimum force in terms of boats and in terms of the number of warheads. Contrary to some of the wild claims that have been made, it will carry far less than the maximum theoretical capability of the system, but nonetheless sufficient for deterrence purposes. We have made no secret of the fact that there will be more warheads than currently carried by Polaris. But to appreciate why this extra capability will be needed and will represent only the minimum required for effective deterrence it is necessary to remember the environment in which Trident will be operating. The force will have to cope with Soviet defence systems that did not exist when Polaris entered service.
The range of the Trident D5 missile will enable the launch submarines to operate over a significantly greater area of the sea than their Polaris counterparts. That will be vital if the boats are to maintain patrol undetected in the face of continuing advances by the Soviet L nion in anti-submarine warfare techniques.
Time is running short and I should concentrate on those issues of particular concern to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Affordability has been discussed, but there is already enough on the record about that. Successive announcements of the Trident costs show that they have come down in real terms after allowing for inflation. The hon. Gentleman has a considerable interest in communications and in the command and control of Trident. He has asked many questions on this subject in the House and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has repeatedly told him that that is classified information. We do not intend to reveal to him how we currently communicate with our submarines nor how we intend to communicate with them in the future. This is an area of immense interest to the Soviet Union. It would obviously like to know how we will control our SSBNS in the future and it would not be in the nation's interest to allow suth information into the public domain.
I should have thought that that was obvious to anyone who considered the issue and considered how the Soviet Union communicates with its submarines. If the hon. Gentleman were able to ask questions in the Supreme Soviet he would get exactly the same answer.

Mr. Bennett: Why does the United States seem to feel happy to discuss the systems that it uses openly'' It obviously wants to convince the Russians that the United States can work them. Surely the British Government have an interest in telling the Soviet Union about the broad outlines of the system, so as to convince the Russians of the same thing? I am not pressing for a detailed technical explanation, but the broad outline of the systems that are available should be made available to convince the other side. Surely that is common sense?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am amazed if the hon. Gentleman is not asking for detail—that seems to be exactly what he is doing.
I hope I can clarify one of two points that the hon. Gentleman raised. On the use of United States communication systems, we have always said, quite clearly, that the British strategic nuclear deterrent force is independent. When we say independent, that is precisely what we mean. We do not use the United States TACAMO very low frequency system for communicating with our submarines, neither are there any agreements between our two countries to do so. This also applies to the use of the extremely low frequency transmitters in Wisconsin and Michigan in the United States. However, that is all I am prepared to say on the subject.
Work on the extremely low frequency transmitter at Glengarry is at an early stage of development. It is too early to predict the outcome, or a possible date for development. The hon. Gentleman has been given a number of answers on that subject.
The hon. Gentleman commented on electromagnetic pulses. We are fully aware of their possible effects—I daresay the Soviets are, too—on communications, but I am not prepared to go into the implications for communications with our nuclear deterrent force. I will only say that any nation with an independent nuclear deterrent must be aware of the phenomenon.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)—

Mr. Boyes: Pronounced Hawton.

Mr. Sainsbury: I find myself occasionally following the hon. Gentleman in these debates; coincidentally, the next constituency listed after his in the "Times Guide to the House of Commons" is mine—Hove. We are neighbours in the guide.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the services at King's bay. The issue of independence in that context turns on whether the Government of the day have control over the operations of the strategic nuclear force. The King's bay arrangements will not affect the operational independence of the United Kingdom deterrent. We shall purchase missiles from the United States and will retain title to this number of missiles. Full control of the deterrent will remain directly in the hands of the

Government, and a large proportion of our missiles will be on board our submarines and ready for use. Of course the King's bay arrangements do not affect the warhead, which remains in United Kingdom hands at all times. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that by opting to service the United Kingdom's Trident missiles at King's bay, rather than building dedicated facilities in the United Kingdom, we have saved more than £780 million.
Processing of these missiles will be done at infrequent intervals. In the extremely unlikely event that the United States ever withdrew the use of King's bay processing facilities, Britain would still have custody of sufficient missiles to maintain an effective deterrent for a sufficient period for steps to be taken to provide our own processing facilities.
Turning to the procurement aspects, I begin by reminding the House that the programme to replace Polaris with Trident in the mid-1990s continues to schedule and to budget. The current estimate has come down, as I have already said.
The nuclear warhead is being produced in the United Kingdom at the atomic weapons establishments. A certain amount of publicity has been given to problems in the construction programme; it is recognised that it is a little behind schedule. The Public Accounts Committee has looked into that exhaustively, as has the Select Committee on Defence. I assure the House that measures are in hand to overcome the difficulties that have been encountered in the construction of the new capital facilities at Aldermaston and in staffing. We are confident that the Trident in-service date will be met. The National Nuclear Corporation has been appointed the facilities project management contractor and I think the measures we have taken will be found to have been effective in overcoming the difficulties that are recognised to have occurred at an earlier stage in the programme.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington referred to reductions in arms and Soviet naval activity. Of course, Soviet naval activity further away from the Soviet homeland, as has been referred to, has been reduced, but what we would be interested in seeing is a reduction in Soviet naval capacity. As was brought out in the debate on the Navy, that capacity has continued to increase both in nuclear and non-nuclear terms.

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Surrey Structure Plan (Hurley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]

9 am

Mr. George Gardiner: I wish to raise on the Adjournment the modifications proposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the draft Surrey structure plan so far as they affect the town of Horley.
Horley is at the southern end of my constituency, immediately north of Gatwick airport. In 1974 it had some 10,000 residents. Thanks to planning decisions since, the number has grown to more than 22,000, resulting in severe strain on its infrastructure, most notably roads and drainage. Further to the north of the town lies the metropolitan green belt, but between it and the green belt lie some 1,200 acres of land currently defined as white land, to which green belt policies allegedly apply.
Accordingly, when in July 1985 Surrey county council published its consultative draft of proposed alterations to the 1980 structure plan, the council proposed running the green belt south to Charlwood, only excluding Horley and its "immediate" surroundings. But in March 1988, when the Secretary of State issued his proposed modifications, he suggested removing the word "immediate", on the grounds that these 1,200, acres should be reserved for possible housing development after the structure plan expires in the year 2001. Thus this one word "immediate" has immense significance, since its removal offers the prospect of Horley more that doubling its population in the early years of the next century, absorbing the parish of Salfords and of severely narrowing what is regarded as green belt.
The Secretary of State made his proposal following an examination in public of the consultative draft, held in Dorking in February 1987, when the panel appointed by him advised against drawing the green belt tightly round Horley. My hon. Friend and I have had considerable correspondence on this, and twice I have described this consultation process as being "severely flawed", in that 11 firms of builders and developers were directly represented, as against just one representative from Reigate and Banstead borough council. There were no representatives invited from Dorking town council nor from Salfords and Sidlow parish council, and no representative from any residents' association or amenity society in the area. My hon. Friend has replied that their interests were represented by someone from the Surrey Association of Town and Parish Councils and another respresentative from the Surrey Amenity Society respectively.
I do not want to make a lot of this in the short time available, but I am afraid that my hon. Friend has missed the point. At this examination in public, 11 firms of builders and developers were represented directly; the elected councils and residents' associations most immediately affected were allowed representation only indirectly. So long as there is such inequality of representation at examinations in public, the Secretary of State will go on facing accusations that he gives greater weight to the interests of builders and developers than to those people in a locality most affected. Given this unequal representation, it is hardly surprising that the panels came to the conclusion that it did, or that the Secretary of State should then propose deleting that word "immediate".
In May 1988 Surrey county council accepted the

proposed modification, but before it had been considered by the local planning authority, the Reigate and Banstead borough council, which was in the process of drawing up its draft local plan. In September 1988 the borough council approved its draft, which did draw the green belt boundary tightly round Horley. This local plan was then referred to the county, since it did not conform with the county's decision four months previously, and in November 1988 the county decided to take no action until the Secretary of State decided whether to proceed with his proposed modification.
So now we have the local planning authority strongly in favour of drawing the green belt tightly round Horley, and the county taking a neutral position. The only ones in favour of keeping those 1,200 acres out of the green belt for possible development after 2001 are the Secretary of State and, of course, the developers.
Yet the Secretary of State has been proclaiming to the Conservative party conference, advising in seminars and writing in newspapers that he wants
local planning to be a local responsibility. It is not something that I can do from the centre, but it needs to be done well and it needs to be done locally.
That quote is from the Daily Telegraph of 1 August 1988. Well, either he means it or he does not, and what he eventually decides on his proposed modification at Horley will he the test.
My hon. Friend the Minister seeks to allay local fears by claiming, in his letter to me of 1 March this year, that if development of this land were to take place it would only be in the longer term—after 2001. To be fair to him, I quote from his letter:
If this conclusion were to be incorporated into the finally approved form of the Structure Plan, I would expect the Borough Council's Local Plan to include policies to the effect that land excluded from the Green Belt on this basis was not available for development while the Plan was in force. Such a policy would be given considerable weight at appeals, as the recent record shows.
He then cites a decision at Runnymede this January.
I do not know about Runnymede, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the record of appeal decisions concerning this white land around Horley shows the very reverse In the last 15 years, 2,400 new houses have been built at Horley on land to which allegedly "green belt policy applies". Furthermore, I can tell him that developers have already purchased options to build on many of those 1,200 acres—and they are certainly not expecting to have to wait until 2001. Without full green belt protection for this land, applications to build and appeals against local planning refusals will come bounding in, and there is no faith locally that the decisions of the Department of the Environment's inspectors will be any different from before.
Finally, I come to perhaps my most important point, which I have possibly not developed forcefully enough in my correspondence with my hon. Friend, yet which is as relevant after 2001 as it is now. That concerns the width of the metropolitan green belt.
In a letter dated 14 April 1980, Mr. Thomson of the Department of the Environment, writing on behalf of the then Secretary of State to Surrey county council giving approval to the 1980 structure plan, referred to
a preferred minimum width or depth of the Metropolitan Green Belt around London to be 12 to 15 miles.
I repeat, a minimum of 12 to 15 miles. If Reigate and Banstead borough council's draft local plan is adopted without modification, the width of the green belt between Purley and the Sussex border south of Horley will be 11·5


miles. If the Secretary of State's proposed modification prevails, the width of the green belt will be fixed at 9·5 miles.
The logic of the Department's position would seem to be that a width of 12 to 15 miles was desirable in 1980, that a width of 11·5 miles of green belt and white land to which green belt policies allegedly apply is acceptable in 1989, but that after 2001, the width of the green belt could come down to 9·5 miles. I put the question straight to my hon. Friend: is he prepared to contemplate a green belt narrowed to 9·5 miles after 2001? If so, that will have implications far away from Horley.
We would find Horley coalescing with Salfords to the north and with Smallfield to the east, creating a new town of 55,000 inhabitants just three miles away from the existing new town of Crawley. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? If he does, let him have the honesty to say so. If he does not, he must withdraw his proposed modification of the Surrey structure plan—and in so doing, stay true to all that he said about
local planning to be a local responsibility.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the debate. As he said, the matter has been canvassed in correspondence between us, and I hope that my remarks will allay the concerns of some of my hon. Friend's constituents.
Before dealing with specific points, I shall set out the current position. The Surrey structure plan first alteration was submitted for approval in June 1986. A public examination of the provisions of the alteration was held in February 1987, and the panel reported in July 1987. It made its recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and in April 1988 he announced the terms of his proposed alterations to that structure plan and invited comments.
The terms of the final approval are still under consideration, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand that I am unable to comment in detail on the merits of the issues that he raised. However, I shall make a few observations.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the scale and location of the Horley development and the question of where the green belt boundary should be drawn. That was explicitly considered at the public examination, when the panel considered both the housing issue in the Horley area and that of the outer boundary of the green belt. Its conclusions were explicit. While recognising that there is long-term potential for development, it concluded that there is no case at present for a large-scale development in the Horley area. However, the panel stated that the area's long-term development potential should be taken into account when the green belt boundary is drawn.
That recommendation is in line with national planning policy guidance that green belt boundaries should not be so tightly drawn around existing settlements that either all future development is proscribed or, more plausibly, that green belt boundaries have to be breached and the integrity of the green belt undermined. The panel noted

that there had been much new development in Holley and that time should be allowed for it to be absorbed into the existing settlement.
The panel recognised that infrastructure problems connected with any substantial new development would need to be carefully considered and be resolved by negotiation before major development is permitted. It recommended that when the local plan drew the detailed boundary of the green belt, it should exclude "Horley and its surroundings" rather than, as had formerly been the case,
Horley and its immediate surroundings.
In making that recommendation, the panel recognised that it would alter the policy in existence for the area since 1980, but concluded that circumstances had changed since then. The plan under consideration now looks forward to the year 2001, and it must be recognised that growth in the Crawley/Gatwick area between 1989 and 2001 is expected to continue and that the plan must take account of that fact.
It is worth noting that in the draft modifications my righ hon. Friend did not seek to increase the housing allocation for Horley in any substantial way, beyond that already in the submitted plan. Nor, as I made clear, did he seek to dissociate himself from the panel's view that any development that might take place would only do so in the long term. My right hon. Friend recognised that Horley needs time to absorb recent large-scale developments before additional ones are committed. There is a world of difference between declining to place an area in the green belt and allocating that area for development.
My hon. Friend questioned the validity of the examination in public. I must say that I find it difficult to accept that the EIP process was flawed simply because not all those who would have liked to have spoken were given the opportunity to do so. If that were to happen, the whole procedure could become extremely protracted. Indeed, section 9(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended, states clearly that there is no automatic right to be heard at an EIP without invitation from the Secretary of State or the panel.
What is vitally important is that all the main issues are raised and properly discussed and that all the relevant points are brought, through the panel, to my right hon. Friend's attention. Invitations to appear before the examination in public are therefore issued with a view to ensuring that the full range of interests are represented and that no particular point of view goes unheard.
I think that the record of the proceedings of the Surrey EIP speaks for itself. A number of development interests were represented, but were counterbalanced by local amenity interests. I am confident that the cases both for and against further development at Horley were clearly put, and that the panel reported the arguments with equal fairness. It is important to remember that the primary duty both of a panel and of my right hon. Friend is not to find a middle course between conflicting private interests, but to ensure that planning decisions are made in the broader public interest. The reasons for the panel's recommendations are set out fully in its report.
I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that the process was undemocratic. The district council, as the democratically accountable local body, represents local views. Again, the record shows that those views were clearly presented and taken into account. The panel's report shows a clear appreciation of both sides of the


question. But even if that were not the case, it is open to anybody—including those who did not appear at the examination—to make representations and objections to my right hon. Friend following the publication of his modifications. He will take into account all those views before making a final decision, and the views expressed in the Chamber today by my hon. Friend will be considered before the final decision is made. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the arguments that he has deployed today and on previous occasions are a very good summary of the arguments against what is proposed by the panel.
My hon. Friend attempted to suggest that the structure plan process was a negation of local responsibility for planning. He has questioned whether my right hon. Friend is really committed to a planning system in which responsibility rests with the locally elected district council. Let me assure the House that my right hon. Friend is committed to such a system. Both planning policy guidance note No 12 on local plans and the recently published White Paper "The Future of Development Plans" clearly show that.
It must be recognised, however, that local decisions cannot be made in isolation. The planning policies of district councils must have regard to the scale and type of demand affecting the region in which they are situated, and to national planning policies. Without broader guidance it would be almost impossible for a district council to formulate appropriate policies.
Local plans must be seen in a strategic context. My hon. Friend seemed to suggest that the local district council should be responsible for strategic as well as local planning, but I cannot agree with him. We fully recognise the right of the local council to have responsibility for local planning, but responsibility for strategy must rest elsewhere.
Similar considerations apply to the principle of the green belt. The green belt seeks to control and restrain growth over a wide area, and the issues arising from that often go far beyond the areas of a single district council. As a Government we must seek to respect the wishes of local residents about the proper development of their area, but that must be tempered with broader considerations of regional or national importance.
The Government have consistently upheld green belt policy, emphasised the permanence of the green belt and stressed that its protection should be maintained for the foreseeable future. Once the general extent of a green belt has been approved, it should be altered only in the most exceptional circumstances. It is necessary in the context of structure and local plans to establish boundaries that will endure, and that are carefully drawn so that they do not include land which it is unnecessary or inadvisable to keep permanently open. Thus we advise local authorities at the stage of defining their green belt—as in the present case at Horley—that proposals in structure plans or local plans that affect green belts should he related to a time scale longer than that normally adopted for other aspects of the plan. That approach is a long-standing element of green belt policy, and was stated in January 1988 in planning policy guidance note No. 2.
Horley is not the only place in the south-east which has accommodated significant growth in recent years, and where the possibility of further development—however remote—has raised local concern. But we cannot pull up the drawbridge on all new development. New development means proper homes for people who need them. In the

south-east those people looking for homes are largely the sons and daughters of existing residents. An additional pressure on the south-east in the 1990s will be that of one-person households; this in part reflects the need of people who are already in the region as they live longer. It would not be justifiable to seek to adopt a planning policy for the region which sought to frustrate or deny these quite reasonable requirements. I know that most people are reluctant to have development in their own back yards, but we have to recognise that there is a justifiable pressure for increased development and this development must be accommodated somewhere. As my right hon. Friend said in his June 1986 letter to the chairman of the south-east regional planning conference, our aim is to cater for much of this requirement by a process which is well related to the pattern of settlement. This is what the Surrey structure plan and all those with a responsibility for drawing it up, are seeking to achieve.
I can understand the views of those who would like no development to take place in the area in question and lean understand that they see a green belt designation as the ultimate deterrent to development—and indeed it would be. But if my right hon. Friend accepts that the area is appropriate for long-term development, then the question is how can it be protected in the short term. I have already explained that it would be inappropriate to leave it in the green belt. Green belt status is not the only way of controlling development proposals. The whole process of drawing up, consulting, and approving local plans within the context of a structure plan is intended to identify in detail where development should go and where it should be restrained.
My hon. Friend referred to my letter to him setting out the possible scenario were the examination in public recommendations to be concerned. My letter outlined the emphasis which could be placed on the local plan which the borough council could draw up. It could identify precisely the area of land involved, propose policies echoing the structure plan approval, and declare that for the lifetime of the plan the land was not seen as being appropriate for development. If, despite such policies, planning applications were made for development, and on being turned down by the council went to appeal, the inspector hearing the appeal would give considerable weight to the policies in the local plan. I cannot therefore agree that a failure to include this area in the green belt, will automatically see it being developed in the next few years. My hon. Friend fears that possibility, but he is more concerned that the area will be liable for development beyond 2001. It is absolutely certain that more land will be needed for development as the years go by. If we are to maintain the integrity of a green-belt policy, it must be a long-term policy. That is what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend referred to the width of the metropolitan green belt. The green belt varies in size, In some areas it is very narrow and in other areas it is wider. We have set out the latest green belt policy in a planning policy guidance note in which we make no reference to the width of the green belt. We emphasise the permanence of the green belt and the need to have precise boundaries and set out the objectives which the green belt serves. My hon. Friend will discover that many green belt areas around the country are much narrower than the nine miles that he feels would be inadequate in his constituency.
I hope that I have given some reassurance to my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the persistence with which


he has deployed his arguments on behalf of his constituents who are understandably concerned. I hope

that he will realise that we are discussing the long term—beyond 2001—rather than the prospect of a substantial immediate additional development in the Horley area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty three minutes past Nine o'clock.